Death of a Member

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death today of Lord Stokes. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to his family and friends.

Prisons: Population

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to reduce the size of the prison population.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government have accepted recommendations in the 2007 review of prisons by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to better align the supply and demand for prison places in the medium to long term. The Government aim to achieve an overall net capacity of 96,000 prison places by 2014.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, that is a disappointing Answer because my Question was about reducing, not increasing, the prison population. Does my noble friend agree that in 2003 the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that,
	"there is no convincing evidence that further increases in the custody rate ... will significantly reduce crime"?
	My right honourable friend Jack Straw said recently that,
	"you have got to have a rational debate about the number of prison places that need to be provided".
	Where is that rational debate, given that the Government seem to have rushed in to increase the number of prison places without such a debate?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we always welcome rational debate. There has been considerable discussion about prison policy, and it is the Government's view that we should always provide enough prison places for serious offenders: those are the people who should be behind bars—the most dangerous people in society. That is why we need the increase that I have just described. Equally, there is a strong case for community sentencing for other offenders, where again we have seen an expansion in the past few years.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would it be possible to enlarge the role of the Parole Board to reduce the number of prisoners?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not sure that enlarging the role of the Parole Board would necessarily lead to that result. I certainly pay tribute to the board and Sir Duncan Nichol who has chaired it so excellently in the past few years. The board's role is clearly set out and it does its functions very well.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we will never build our way out of this crisis of prison overcrowding and that the only real answer must lie with more a more selective use of custody by judges? Does he agree that, given just an average period for the preliminary measures that have to be taken and the rise in the prison population over the past two or three years, long before the first person enters a Titan prison the whole system will have gone completely through the roof?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord's terminology that "the system has gone through the roof". We clearly face considerable pressure within the system as it is. That is why we are embarking on the Titan prison programme. At the moment, it is subject to consultation in relation to the design and features of such prisons, but I reiterate that the Government's view is that prison must be the right place for serious offenders in the way that I have described. Equally, one cannot ignore the increase in community sentences and the impact of offender management programmes. In the past few years, we have seen their outcome in the reduction in the offending rate.

Baroness Corston: My Lords, does the Minister agree with my finding that the majority of women in prison are not dangerous, serious or violent offenders but are a danger only to themselves? Does he accept my main recommendation that these women should not be imprisoned, but should be dealt with more appropriately in the community and that the prison population would reduce if my report were implemented in full?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for the excellence of her report. She will know that the Government have accepted almost all her recommendations. She is right that prison will remain an option for women who commit serious offences but, for women who do not need to be in custody, we need to make sure that we have the right provision and programmes focused on the prevention of reoffending. I agree with my noble friend.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I shall ask the Minister a simple question: if the crime rate is falling, why are prison numbers rising? How has the system produced this anomaly?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps it is the fact that potential criminals know that prison may be the end of the road for their wrongdoings or perhaps it is to do with more effective policing. One thing is for sure: we should rejoice at the reduction in crime in this country.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, are we asking the right question? Government legislation requires that judges consider custody in certain cases, so, in the interests of the law-abiding public, would it not be more appropriate to ask why the Government have not provided enough places to keep criminals out of circulation for the whole period of their sentence?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the purpose of the review by my noble friend Lord Carter was to make sure that we had the right balance between the supply and demand for prison places. That is why we are increasing provision to around 96,000 by 2014. One of my noble friend's recommendations was the establishment of a framework for high-level policy decisions and discussions about getting right the essential balance between sentencing policy in general and the provision of places without fettering the individual judicial discretion that is inherent in our system of sentencing policy.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, the previous Lord Chief Justice estimated that 60 per cent of all lifers were exceeding their tariffs by more than a year before being released. There is in prison at the moment a man who is owed more than 40 years on a 16-year tariff. How many prisoners are in prison who have exceeded their tariff? I accept that some of them should still be there but, for administrative reasons, some are there longer, which is more expensive and places an unnecessary burden on the system.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not have the figures with me, although I will certainly write to the noble Lord with the most up-to-date figures that I can lay my hands on. On the general point, of course some prisoners may be in the position that he described for the reason that he has given, but he should not ignore the improvement that has taken place in the development of offender behavioural programmes, which has allowed for the successful release of many prisoners who have gone on to lead a good and useful life in society.

Lord Richard: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can help me. I come back to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Is it not anomalous that at a time when the crime rate is going down, the number of people in prison is going up? Is that because those going to prison are committing more serious offences, or is it because the judges are now sending more people to prison than they used to? Either way, the Government ought to tell us.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Clearly, my Lords, there are a number of factors in this. There are longer sentences and more offenders are being brought to justice but the overall impact is a reduction in crime and reoffending rates. Surely that is a matter for some satisfaction. We cannot be complacent—we must build on that reduction—but the trends are going in the right direction.

British Overseas Territories: Money-Laundering Controls

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest, as a member of my family works in the Cayman Islands.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to ensure that British Overseas Territories, particularly the Cayman Islands, are included in the white list of financial centres with top-quality anti-money-laundering controls.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the recently published European Union list of equivalent third countries represents the common understanding of member states and will be subject to periodic review. The Treasury intends shortly to write to all UK overseas territories with financial centres, outlining a process by which they may be considered equivalent by the UK. In due course, if merited, the UK is prepared to propose overseas territories for inclusion in the EU list of equivalent third countries.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but is he aware that the Cayman Islands Government take the issues of anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist financing very seriously indeed? After all, they comply fully with the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force and, perhaps even more importantly, were rated in the top five in the review of February this year, alongside the UK, Singapore and Belgium. Is it not disappointing to discover that Her Majesty's Treasury seems to have looked after the dependent territories but somehow to have left out the overseas territories? Will the Government now actively and urgently support the inclusion of the Cayman Islands in the white list; and, if not, explain why?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the negotiations that led to the directive were difficult. It is not easy for the United Kingdom to reach all our desired objectives. The noble Lord was kind enough to recognise that we did manage to get the dependencies within the framework. We have more trouble with the overseas territories, because Europeans have some suspicions about the problems of tax havens. It is therefore a difficult negotiation. We recognise that the Cayman Islands look as if they meet the criteria. We are applying tests to establish that that is indeed the case; if they meet the criteria, we will pursue that interest.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that those of us who have read the National Audit Office report of last November on risk in the overseas territories and the recent report by the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place think that there are some real concerns about the development of financial services in the overseas territories—in particular, in the smaller overseas territories? Some of us have received letters this morning from the London representative of the Turks and Caicos Islands about the recently announced inquiry into financial management in the Turks and Caicos.
	Does the Minister recall that on 5 March, at the end of a short debate on the overseas territories, his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, referring to the overseas territories,
	"we are taking forward the NAO's recommendation that we should develop a financial services strategy".—[Official Report, 5/3/08; col. 1163.]
	How much progress has been made? Have the Government taken it a little further forward since then?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, we intend to take this forward. We are applying to the overseas territories the tests that they will need to meet so that we can support them as far as the European directive is concerned. Obviously, on the issues under negotiation with the European Community, there are difficulties with the overseas territories. They are not uniform and do not fit into a pattern of which Europe as a whole is cognisant. Consequently, we have to work hard on their behalf. We have indicated that we are undertaking that work.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the All-Party Group on the Cayman Islands. Is my noble friend aware that the Cayman Islands have observed the European directive on personal accounts held on the islands? Is he further aware that their financial regulation is superior to that of the United States of America?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not going to be drawn on the last point. However, the Cayman Islands, as all noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon have attested, are disappointed that they are not within the framework of the European directive because they appear to meet these criteria. We have undertaken to pursue their interests once we can establish categorically that they meet the criteria. The House will recognise that the Government have not had an easy task in these negotiations. In circumstances in which we stand to gain from the acceptance of the financial directive across all 27 European states, it has not been easy for us to deal with the dependencies and the overseas territories. We have already made considerable progress.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords—

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that if French and Dutch dependencies are included on the white list, it is quite wrong that the Cayman Islands should be excluded?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a point, but the French and Dutch dependencies have a rather different constitutional relationship with their mother countries. It will be recognised that the French constitution provides for direct representation of the overseas territories in the French Assembly. Therefore the Government can speak directly on their behalf as full representatives of them. The British constitutional position, as we all know, is somewhat different for historical reasons. That is why Europe is not entirely prepared to accept just our tokens of good will on this matter. We have to substantiate the case.

Health: Telehealth and Telecare

Baroness Greengross: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to encourage the use of telehealth and telecare technology to help the management of long-term conditions.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, these technologies hold much promise, but they are not as widespread as they could be, primarily because the commissioners remain unconvinced of their effectiveness and value for money. That is why we are now undertaking what we believe to be the largest randomised control trial of telehealth and telecare in the world. We hope to be able to demonstrate how the technology actually works and how it can improve the lives of people.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, in 2002 the Government set a target for all homes requiring telecare to have access to it by the end of 2010, and in May this year the Secretary of State announced the rollout of the whole system demonstrators in three areas. These pilots were first proposed in January 2006. Will the noble Baroness explain why it has taken quite so long to implement the whole system demonstrators and how the Government intend to ensure that their targets are met?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to be concerned about delays, but the reality is that the commissioners do need to be convinced about the use of telehealth and telecare. The 2010 date arises from an early paper in 2002 about rolling out telemonitoring as one of a range of options to be considered. Since then, the Government have established an £80 million fund to support promoting and embedding telecare services. The whole system demonstrator referred to by the noble Baroness was launched in May this year; it should have been launched in the new year but was delayed due to the complexity of setting up such an important research programme. Finally, we are establishing an action learning network by the King's Fund which will run alongside the research. It aims to take up any positive early learning that flows from the demonstrator project and roll that out as well without waiting for its final evaluation.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Government ensure that where a patient has been fitted with a heart monitor or a blood pressure monitor for 24 hours, that information is e-mailed to the consultant immediately or as soon as possible after it is removed from the patient so that the patient can be treated immediately and before their condition deteriorates? They may well have to wait four months before they see their consultant again, and the consultant will probably have forgotten about them.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, the noble Lord points exactly to the benefits of telehealth, which involves electronic sensors and equipment that will monitor people's health. For example, those with COPD and breathing difficulties will monitor their own oxygen levels at home, but that information will also go directly to the clinician or expert in the area who can monitor the levels and get in touch with the individual within days in order to avert, for example, hospital admittance. The noble Lord is completely right about how it should work.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, an article in this week's BMJ written by a general practitioner says that the transfer of ordinary in-patient reports, X-rays and scans still takes weeks to reach GPs, and hence the patients, and that this delays their treatment. The situation is so bad that some NHS managers are considering outsourcing medical secretarial work to India. Will the Minister admit that neither telehealth nor the new IT system that we hear so much about addresses this basic problem, and will she resolve to tackle the matter urgently during the Recess?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is suggesting that I should not have a holiday. As we have discussed in the House before, issues about new technology and rolling out information technologies—which are of enormous benefit within the health service—take time to resolve and there will be problems. However, I undertake to explore the issue that the noble Baroness raised, and to do so during the Summer Recess.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, however health technology may advance, she will ensure that what happens in so many large organisations does not happen in this field? From BT to councils and even Parliament itself, it is quite impossible to talk to a real person on the telephone. If that should develop here, you would have to have a very long-term condition indeed before it could be cured.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, having spent some time this weekend on the telephone trying to deal not with the health service but with another part of technology. Telecare and telehealth aim to help people to stay at home. Bed sensors, for example, will tell a warden that someone may have gone to the loo but has not got back into bed. That will give an early warning. It is about providing people with personal care where they most need it.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I can see the great merit in the remoteness of this care, and where it works, it will work very well. However, does the Minister agree that a great many people with chronic conditions can be greatly helped by means of the general information on the internet that is available to most people? That can answer many minor questions and enable people to help control their health conditions.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. However, I have elderly parents who would not dream of looking on the internet for information about their chronic conditions and it is up to me to make sure that they get it. Both also receive a great deal of printed information through their doctors' surgeries, which is exactly as it should be.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that nothing can substitute for a face-to-face consultation with the doctor, when changes in a patient's condition can sometimes be picked up?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right, but this is not a substitute for face-to-face consultations with the doctor. The point here is that many people want to stay in their home, and the point of this technology is that it provides those who have care of them with alerts to warn that things may be going wrong.

Railways: Network Rail

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will review Network Rail's corporate governance.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Network Rail is a private sector company limited by guarantee. Changes to Network Rail's corporate governance are matters for its board and members, not for the Government. The independent Office of Rail Regulation is currently consulting on changes to Network Rail's licence, aimed at strengthening the company's accountability. This includes a review of Network Rail's governance arrangements.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the targets and governance of Network Rail cannot be right when on the one hand the executives get huge bonuses while on the other passengers suffer so much misery and inconvenience? Is my noble friend aware of the Co-operative blueprint The People's Rail, that at its annual general meeting last week members of Network Rail called for a review, and that even today the House of Commons Select Committee has published a report calling for more effective governance and scrutiny of the company? Surely it is time that the Government joined the growing groundswell to give the British people real power over Network Rail.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am certainly aware of the outcome of the annual general meeting the other week and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley on his strenuous efforts at it. There will be a review of the governance of Network Rail, and Iain Couch has welcomed the opportunity to participate in and co-operate with it. The Office of Rail Regulation is reviewing the way the licence works, looking in particular at executive remuneration bonuses. I am well aware of the issues. My noble friend has made some interesting and useful points.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we are where we are, but does the Minister agree that, while Network Rail is a private company, it has members rather than shareholders? What we might do straightaway is review the membership to make it more all-encompassing so that it can put right some of Network Rail's defects.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's conversion to reviewing governance issues. Of course it was his party that left us with the mess of rail privatisation all those years ago, and we are still paying the price. The People's Rail is a useful and valuable contribution to what will no doubt be a broadening debate, and it seems that the party opposite may at last be moving in the right direction.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, the members of Network Rail have now voted to conduct an imminent review of the company's governance structure. Does the Minister agree that this should be concluded very speedily and that the Government should not intervene in the affairs of the company in this instance, as they have done whenever the company's shortcomings have been raised in the past?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have read the terms of my noble friend Lord Berkeley's motion, which I understand was carried unamended. It suggests that the review group should submit its findings and recommendations to members by December this year. It is not the role of the Government to interfere in this review; it should be conducted independently. I agree with the noble Lord that that is the right way to proceed.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is time we looked at this situation again? There were many arguments with the then Prime Minister about nationalisation of the railway industry. The fact is that Britain is one of the very few countries in the world whose railway system is not state-owned.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are where we are. Rail nationalisation and the review of the governance structure are two separate issues. The Government's role is to ensure that we have the right level of investment—we have been increasing it over the past decade—and that we improve the range and quality of services. That is exactly where our commitment has been, and we are now reaping the benefit of that investment as the number of people travelling by rail—40 per cent up on 10 years ago—demonstrates.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, following on from his previous answer, does my noble friend agree that the principal criterion against which the governance of Network Rail should be judged is whether it is capable of delivering the investment in infrastructure which the growing demand for rail travel is making necessary; and whether, at the same time, it is capable of convincing the Government that that investment needs support? Does he further agree that, whatever the shortcomings of Network Rail are today, it is a whole heap better than Railtrack, which preceded it?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend's last suggestion. His earlier two points will be an important part of the debate. The noble Lord is on the right track.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, how does the pay of the Chief of the Defence Staff compare with that of the chief executive of Network Rail?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not going to get drawn into a debate over the relative merits of leading members of the military and the chief executive of Network Rail. That is quite the wrong way to proceed.

Lord Snape: My Lords, does my noble friend not accept that it is bizarre for a Minister to say, in effect, that the governance of Network Rail is nothing to do with us, when billions of pounds of taxpayers' money are directed to that organisation? There is something wrong with the governance of Network Rail when, despite the dislocation, particularly to the West Coast Main Line, every weekend and right through the forthcoming holiday season, its chief executive and some of its directors are paid bonuses that, frankly, many of us feel are obscene.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right to express his robust views on this subject. It is right that the Office of Rail Regulation should be looking at the licence arrangements. We have to observe a proper distance between government and governance issues. It would be a profound mistake for us to attempt to micromanage at all times.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, surely there is a problem in that it is public money, as my noble friend said; there are no shareholders to vote out the directors; and the Government set this thing up. Are they totally immune to any criticism or change?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course they are not. The Office of Rail Regulation does a very good job, and a review is being conducted. We should await its outcome.

Business

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton will repeat the Statement entitled "Welfare Reform" at a convenient point after 4 pm.

Counter-Terrorism Bill

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Counter-Terrorism Bill has been committed that it considers the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 20
	Schedule 1 Clauses 21 to 23Schedule 2Clauses 24 to 42Schedule 3Clauses 43 to 50Schedule 4Clauses 51 to 66 Schedule 5 Clause 67Schedule 6Clauses 68 to 83Schedule 7Clauses 84 to 103Schedule 8Clauses 104 to 106.—(Lord West of Spithead.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning Bill

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Planning Bill has been committed that it considers the Bill in the following order:
	Clause 1
	Schedule 1Clauses 2 to 35Schedule 2Clauses 36 to 109Schedule 3Clauses 110 to 115Schedule 4Clause 116Schedule 5Clauses 117 to 146Schedule 6Clauses 147 to 181Schedule 7 Clauses 182 to 186 Schedule 8Clauses 187 and 188Schedule 9Clauses 189 and 190Schedule 10Clause 191 Schedule 11Clauses 192 to 221Schedule 12Clauses 222 and 223Schedule 13Clauses 224 to 227.—(Baroness Andrews.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: Code of Practice) Order 2008

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18 June be approved. 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Considered in Grand Committee on 16 July.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 2008

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4 June be approved. 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Considered in Grand Committee on 16 July.—(Lord Tunnicliffe.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Maternity and Parental Leave etc. and the Paternity and Adoption Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2008

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30 June be approved. 25th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Considered in Grand Committee on 16 July.—(Baroness Royall of Blaisdon.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration (Supply of Information to the Secretary of State for Immigration Purposes) Order 2008

Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Civil Penalty Code of Practice) Order 2008

Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2008

Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2008

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I beg to move the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 4, 11 and 19 June be approved. 21st, 22nd and 24th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Considered in Grand Committee on 16 July.—(Lord West of Spithead.)
	On Question, Motions agreed to.

Planning and Energy Bill

Report received.

Immigration (Discharged Gurkhas) Bill [HL]

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
	Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lee of Trafford.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I beg to move Motion A, that this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 1A to 4A.
	Noble Lords' amendments were disagreed to in the other place because they involved charges on the public revenue and were therefore subject to Commons financial privilege. I would like to put on record that I am nevertheless grateful to noble Lords opposite for the thorough scrutiny the Bill has received in this House.
	Moved, Motion A, That this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 1A to 4A.—(Lord McKenzie of Luton.)

Lord Newby: My Lords, we are not surprised that the Minister gives that reason. What I find surprising is that the authorities in your Lordships' House allowed amendments to be debated on a subject that was bound to lead to the Commons rejecting them without debate for the reasons given in the Motion before us. I suggest to the Minister and his colleagues that in future, when Bills come before your Lordships' House that deal with national insurance or any other aspect of taxation, rather more consideration is given to which amendments can be taken by your Lordships' House. The way that this has been dealt with has wasted the time of your Lordships' House, that of the Minister and that of noble Lords who took part in what turned out to be a completely futile exercise.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it was opposition amendments that we were dealing with. It was not necessary for the matter to be debated in the other place; it was clear that the amendments passed by this House strayed into the financial privilege of the other place. It is up to the noble Lords opposite who moved the amendments to consider their position with regard to this.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education and Skills Bill

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The LORD SPEAKER in the Chair.]
	Clause 57 [Educational institutions: duty to provide information]:
	[Amendments Nos. 177 to 179 not moved.]
	Clause 57 agreed to.
	Clause 58 agreed to.
	Clause 59 [Internet and telephone support services etc]:

Baroness Verma: moved Amendment No. 180:
	Clause 59, page 33, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) the provision, in response to requests by young persons and relevant young adults, of access to information and opinions expressed by persons who have pursued or are pursuing education, training or careers which are of interest to the said young persons and relevant young adults."

Baroness Verma: Amendment No. 189 would insert proposed paragraph (c) into Clause 59(2). I applaud the Government for including in the clause the means to provide information electronically. I certainly support moving with the times and the internet is a superb tool, when used correctly. The amendment was inspired by Edge, which made the very good point that if young people are interested in a particular course or career, they should be able to hear directly from people who have pursued or are pursuing that course or career. Being able to find out from someone directly about the path they have chosen, what they set out to achieve and how they have achieved it is very inspiring. It adds life to an idea, allows a young person to see an example of someone, perhaps not much older than they are, and gives them a role model.
	Essentially, the spirit of my amendment is that we should use the latest technology, learn lessons, learn about best existing practice and recognise that young people are often most influenced when seeing how something has been done by hearing directly from someone who has done it and to whom they can relate. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support the amendment. It is sensible that a great deal of information about new careers is available on the internet There is also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, mentioned, back-up from people who have worked in specific careers. There is an interesting website called horsesmouth.co.uk where people give information about what it is like to do a particular job. It is an interactive site, which young people are used to because of sites such as Facebook, and they can make comments or ask questions, to which they get replies. It is a very interesting development. For the young people of today, who are so adept at using the internet and their mobile telephones in ways that we oldies do not always appreciate, it is the right way to get the information over to them.
	However, one needs to differentiate between information, advice and guidance. While some advice can be given through the internet and over the telephone, face-to-face interviews are extremely important and we should make sure that we do not simply rely on the internet. It is vital that there are trained careers advisers on hand to provide advice and guidance to young—and older—people and that we do not rely entirely on electronic means.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Sharp, for their contributions. I am sure that their arguments are very well made and extremely valuable. I should be delighted, at this point in the proceedings, to take them away and consider them at leisure. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment at this stage.

Baroness Verma: I thank the Minister for that. Because I have nothing to consider yet, I eagerly await her response at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 181 and 181A not moved.]
	Clause 59 agreed to.
	Clause 60 [Inspection]:

Baroness Verma: moved Amendment No. 182:
	Clause 60, page 33, line 32, after "State" insert "or by at least 50 pupils, students or parents resident in the local authority area"

Baroness Verma: Clause 60 places a duty on the chief inspector to inspect and report on Connexions services when requested to do so by the Secretary of State. It used to be the case that Ofsted inspected Connexions, but it has not done so since 2004. Amendment No. 182 would ensure that, if local people are concerned about the quality of the Connexions service in their area, they can trigger an inspection by the chief inspector. That would make the process accountable to local people and responsive to the very people who are affected by its performance. In responding to the amendment, will the Minister explain the process that would currently lead the Secretary of State to insist on an inspection under the Bill as drafted and explain why that is preferable to local accountability?
	Amendment No. 183 specifies that inspection of the Connexions service should include the inspection of facilities and services for young people with special educational needs. It is a sad truth that people with SEN figure largely in the group that this Bill is determined to bring back into learning, and thus employment, because people with such needs clearly do not always do best under the system at the moment. I, and others here, have already spoken at length about the failings of the educational system for those who have special needs and the need to improve provision for them. Surely the Minister will agree with me that a big start to making those improvements would be to identify inspections when they could be made.
	On the same lines, while Clause 60 allows for an inspection to be made of the provision of services, it says nothing about quality of service or that the inspector should inspect the services in relation to quality. Amendment No. 184 would add the phrase,
	"and to the quality of such services",
	to place this straightforward requirement in the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Am I not right in thinking that Ofsted is the inspection machinery for Connexions? The fact that it has not actually inspected Connexions since 2004 merely reflects the fact that it would probably have a normal roster to do so from time to time. The amendment would mean that, if there was particular concern about failures of the Connexions service, it would be possible to ask Ofsted to look into those failures. In the normal course of events, we would expect to see Ofsted making regular inspections of Connexions service.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: Amendment No. 184A is in my name. Although it takes a slightly different tack from the other amendments in this group, I should like to speak to it now as it is one of the amendments to Clause 60. Subsection (7) attempts to make it an offence, liable to a fine on summary conviction, for somebody who,
	"obstructs a person in carrying out or participating in the inspection".
	My heart sinks when I see this clause in the Bill. There has never to my knowledge been an offence before in refusing to allow inspection. As one who was an HMI for a very large part of my career and was Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, responsible for the training of new inspectors, I say most forcefully that the importance of an inspector going into a school—whether an Ofsted inspector or one of Her Majesty's inspectors—is that they go there with the authority of the law and with the authority of the Secretary of State behind them. They go there also to contribute to the quality and life of the school. To go there with the force of an offence behind them completely changes the relationship. The relationship ought to be one in which the inspector goes in with courtesy, good will and an intention genuinely to contribute to the life and quality of education in the school. For years, when training a new HMI I used to say, "The fact that you have the authority of the Secretary of State behind you means that you never stamp your foot and assert that authority. There are hundreds of ways in which you can assert that authority without being bullying or bossy".
	In my early days as a local HMI, I remember vividly encountering a lecturer in an FE college who decided that over his dead body would I be allowed into his room to inspect. He stood in the corridor holding out his arms saying, "You shall not come into my room. Under no circumstances are you allowed". I talked to him for a few minutes and said, "I am very sorry you feel that way and I understand that it is threatening and uncomfortable to have someone sitting in your room". I assured him that I would not report personally on him but that I was there to observe the learning. I said, "Obviously, at the moment there is no point in disrupting your class by coming in, but I should like very much to come in later this afternoon. Let us talk about that when you have had a chance to think about it". Indeed, he did. We talked later on and I explained the functions of inspection. I asked whether he had a particular group doing some interesting work that I could learn from by observing. At that point, he invited me in.
	I firmly believe that that is the way it should happen. I would hate to see the thing being turned into a criminal offence with a fine attached. That changes the relationship between an inspector and the school into a foot-stamping exercise: "We are government inspectors and we have come to check you out". I hope very much that in his reply the Minister will agree that this clause can be changed and that we can restore the relationship of fellow professionals working together for the good of the children in the school.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: In the light of that interesting exposition, will the Minister tell us whether the department knows of cases where this measure is likely to be needed to be invoked so that inspection can be carried out?

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I should have said earlier how much we on these Benches support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. She is absolutely right about the importance of inspectors working with the good will of those whom they inspect rather than putting their backs up by making it a criminal offence to oppose inspection.

Lord Lucas: My general criticism of current inspection methods is that they are not supportive enough. They do not take the opportunity to spread good practice between one school and another. Surely, that is enormously important in the case of Connexions because there are no obvious ways in which good practice will spread other than by Ofsted. At least a third or even a half of Ofsted's remit in these cases should be telling schools how they can do better—showing them where things have gone better and introducing them to new ways of thinking and working. Being inspected ought to be a positive experience. In some cases it will be cathartic, but it should always be positive because you will come out of it doing things better. I am as disappointed as my noble friend to see subsection (7) in Clause 60.

Lord Adonis: I pity the teacher or head teacher who seeks to obstruct the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, in going about her public duties. I imagine that they would quite quickly see the error of their ways.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: Or Minister.

Lord Adonis: Or indeed a Minister, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, so rightly says. These penalties are in extremis and are certainly not intended for anything other than the most extreme cases. In my experience of the work of Ofsted and Her Majesty's inspectors, they lead by example and get willing consent from those whom they inspect. However, as I shall explain later, these measures are consistent with other provisions in other legislation about the statutory powers of inspectors.
	First, I shall deal with the overall framework. There was a programme of inspections of Connexions services between the autumn of 2002 and the autumn of 2004. Ofsted carried out full inspections of 28 Connexions partnerships. Of these, 89 per cent were rated satisfactory or better and 60 per cent were rated as good or better. There have been no further inspections focused solely on Connexions partnerships. Instead, since September 2005, Ofsted, with other inspectorates, has undertaken holistic, joint area reviews of services for children and young people in a local authority area. JARs replaced the previously separate inspections of local education authorities, local authority social services, Connexions services and the provision for students aged 14 to 19. In future, performance management of local education authorities' delivery of Connexions services will be outcome-based and will be in accordance with the national agreement between central and local government, under which inspection will be proportionate to risk. Under arrangements to be introduced next year for comprehensive area assessment of local authorities, inspection will be triggered when inspectorates assess risks to be high. Where there is clear evidence of inadequate performance, we will continue to consider whether intervention is necessary, including, as a last resort, through the use of statutory intervention powers.
	That brings me directly to Amendment No. 182, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, which would require the chief inspector to carry out an inspection on request,
	"by at least 50 pupils, students or parents resident in the local authority area".
	There may well be a case for an inspection if such a number of parents, students, pupils or other interested parties requested the chief inspector to carry out an inspection, but to put this requirement in primary legislation would be unduly restrictive. Individuals or groups can already freely petition the Secretary of State or Her Majesty's Chief Inspector to undertake an inspection, and these petitions are taken very seriously by both organisations. Speaking as a Minister who sometimes has to deal with these petitions, my first recourse is immediately to refer them to the chief inspector and ask for advice about whether an inspection should take place. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector is also under a general duty to encourage services to be user focused, and must have regard to the views of service users, their parents and employers about services being inspected, and their levels of satisfaction with the services.
	Amendment No. 183 seeks to specify that inspections must make judgments on the degree to which Connexions services facilitate the participation of young people with special needs. Amendment No. 184 seeks specifically to include the quality of services in the scope of inspections. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, that the existing provisions already meet the purposes of both these amendments. Section 118 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 provides that the chief inspector has the general duty to keep the Secretary of State informed about the quality of services within her remit and about improvements in the quality of such services, thereby firmly placing the focus of inspection on the quality of services, including the quality of services for pupils with special educational needs.
	In respect of Amendment No. 183, I assure the noble Baroness that we take very seriously the provision of appropriate Connexions services for young people with learning difficulties and disabilities. Clause 54 places a duty on local education authorities to make services available to all young people between 13 and 19, and for young people with special needs up to their 25th birthday. This duty is reinforced by the quality standards for information, advice and guidance published in October 2007, which require in Standard 48 that additional and sustained guidance and support is provided to those young people with special needs or learning difficulties and/or disabilities. The standards will be covered by the central statutory guidance under Clause 54(4). In addition, inspections under this clause will be governed by the statutory framework for inspection of children's services under Section 21 of the Children Act 2004, which gives prominence to inspecting services for children and young people with special educational needs. Five of the 36 key judgments in the framework relate specifically to outcomes for children and young people with special educational needs.
	Finally, Amendment No. 184A would remove the sanction that wilfully obstructing an inspection in any way is an offence that is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. Similar sanctions with regard to inspections of local authority children's functions already exist in other legislation. As an example, inspections of local authorities' children's functions under Section 136 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, provided for in Section 140(9) of that Act, provide for a similar regime.
	Similarly, Section 118 of the Learning and Skills Act, dealing with the inspection of Connexions services, which this clause will replace, also provides for sanctions for wilful obstruction. Inspectors should expect nothing less than full co-operation from those managing services under inspection and others around them. Wilful obstruction of inspections should not be tolerated, not least because to do so is obstructing work that is to be carried out on behalf of Her Majesty. Clause 60(7) is wholly consistent with existing legislation. It safeguards those carrying out inspections and acts as a sanction for those who may obstruct that work. As I said in my opening remarks, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, that only in the most exceptional circumstances should it be necessary to use powers of that kind.

Lord Lucas: Have they ever actually been used in any circumstances in any legislation that the noble Lord is calling on as a precedent?

Lord Adonis: I am not sure, but I will check and come back to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on that.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply and for his understanding of my concern. The legislation that he quoted from comes in much more from children's services and social services than from the education field. This is a new precedent in terms of inspection of schools. To my knowledge, there has never been any need to pursue any kind of formal action against any teacher or lecturer who may, for a temporary period, have felt any resentment at inspection. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his answer. No doubt we shall return to this discussion.

Baroness Verma: I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response, and I thank all noble Lords who spoke on the group of amendments. I understand that the Government are moving towards outcome-based services. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. It is, of course, reassuring to know that inspections can be triggered if a need is felt by users. It would be useful to know that a consistent working of inspection was in place. It is quite worrying that no inspections have taken place since 2004, which seems quite a long time.
	I echo what my noble friend Lady Perry said on her amendment—that this is a matter best left to discretion and common sense, not to the police and the prosecution service. What benefit would Clause 60(7) bring if a person who wilfully obstructs an inspection resorts to violence or threats? Existing laws are sufficient to deal with the problem. It is more likely that resistance will be in the form of a stubborn refusal to submit to an inspection. That requires tact and persuasion, not an arrest warrant. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 183 to 184A not moved.]
	Clause 60 agreed to.
	Clauses 61 to 64 agreed to.
	Clause 65 [Assessments relating to learning difficulties]:

Baroness Morris of Bolton: moved Amendment No. 185:
	Clause 65, page 36, line 16, leave out from "if" to "believes" in line 19 and insert "—
	(a) a young person is on the special needs register of his school, and(b) the local authority in England in which the young person lives"

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I shall also speak to the other amendments in my name in this group. Our amendments to Clause 65 are intended to make it easier for children who may have learning difficulties to obtain an assessment under the clause. I shall raise again the problems of those children who have special educational needs, and I make no apology for doing so. Far too often, they fall first from the education system, often because their needs have gone unrecognised.
	Amendment No. 188 deals with young people who leave school unexpectedly, possibly because of disappointing GCSE results or to pursue an alternative option. Those young people will not have had the assessment in their final year of education that is required by the clause, as it is assumed that they will continue their education. Our amendment would add a new subsection (2)(a) to proposed new Section 139A of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, by providing that an assessment should be arranged for them. The amendment ensures that children who leave unexpectedly do not slip through the net.
	Our Amendment No. 189 is inspired by concerns raised by the National Autistic Society, which we share. The amendment would include children who are subject to school action and school action plus programmes and, therefore, fall short of qualifying for a full statement of special educational needs under the clause. I am sure that noble Lords are aware of the terrible difficulty that parents can face in obtaining a statement of special educational needs for their child. The amendment would ensure that children who did not qualify for an SEN assessment would nevertheless be given one. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 186 and 187. Amendment No. 186 mirrors exactly Amendment No. 189, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. I seek clarification from the Minister, because I understand that the guidance being drafted by his department incorporates a change from the existing arrangements, which will ensure that young people with or without a statement who the local authority believes have learning difficulties and who choose to pursue learning in a post-16 environment during years 10 and 11 will receive an assessment of their learning needs at this early stage. That explains our amendment, which includes young people who participate in school action or school action plus.
	Only 3 per cent of young people have statements of special educational needs, whereas 15 per cent of young people are regarded as having special educational needs. That is a large number, and it is important that those who by the age of 15 remain under school action or school action plus, who do not want to pursue an academic route and who need help as they want to move into the world of work, have an assessment of what they can and cannot achieve and of the sort of guidance that they need. Along with that change, there will need to be a duty on local authorities to have regard to the assessments, since they will be responsible for funding provision for those young people in the post-16 world.
	It is important also to separate the duties of the local authority to provide an independent assessment of the young person's needs from that of providing appropriate learning, once those duties are devolved to local authorities from the LSC. Since local authorities are required to meet these learning provisions from their funds, there is an inherent conflict of interest where an assessment may indicate a level of need which the local authority may consider to be too expensive. One constantly sees similar inherent conflicts of interests as regards statements of special educational needs, which is why many local authorities drag their feet and spin out the period before they have to issue statements.
	In addition, staff carrying out the assessment should be competent to carry out the task. They will require a detailed knowledge of local and national opportunities for learning, in addition to the skills appropriate to working with this client group, their families and support networks. Equally, emphasis should be placed on the need to ensure that post-16 providers are aware of assessments and take account of their contents in planning and developing learning programmes for young people with learning difficulties. That explains our Amendment No. 187, which adds at the end of new subsection (2), which specifies that the assessment must be carried out, that the local authority should also,
	"have regard to this assessment in the subsequent provision of education and training".

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support the amendments. I am reminded more than anything else of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, stressed a day or so ago—that the earlier these assessments are done, the better. However, if the Minister is not able to tell us that the points made just now are adequately covered by the Bill or by adequate instructions, I certainly hope that changes will be made.

Lord Adonis: I shall deal, first, with Amendment No. 185, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. I entirely agree with her that everyone who needs an assessment should receive one, and that will include some students who are on school action or school action plus programmes. Clause 65 makes provision for that.
	It is very important to read new subsection (2) in conjunction with new subsection (5). New subsection (2) provides that for those who already have a statement a local authority,
	"must arrange for an assessment of the person to be conducted at some time during his last year of compulsory schooling".
	However, new subsection (5) gives local authorities a power "at any time" to arrange for an assessment to be conducted in respect of all the categories of young people set out in new subsection (6)—that is, any young person who is,
	"in his last year of compulsory schooling, or is over compulsory school age but has not attained the age of 25 ... appears to the authority to have a learning difficulty within the meaning of section 13, and ... is receiving, or in the opinion of the authority is likely to receive, post-16 education or training or higher education".
	As ever, my department stands willing to assist authorities in interpreting their duties. New subsection (7) provides:
	"In exercising its functions under this section an authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State".
	The noble Baroness can be assured that not only are we intending to issue guidance but we already have guidance in draft on how local authorities should interpret their responsibilities in this area. This draft guidance has already gone to a number of organisations with expertise in the area and I am told that we are taking on board a range of useful comments. We will consult much more widely on the guidance once the Bill has received Royal Assent.
	Furthermore, the published quality standards for information, advice and guidance, which I am circulating to Members of the Committee and to which local authorities are obliged to have regard, require that additional and sustained guidance is provided to young people who have specific needs—that is, standard 4.8. Another standard, 5.5, requires that,
	"stereotypes and limited career aspirations are challenged, for example through the use of positive actions activities, taster sessions, the use of appropriate role models and work placements".
	Therefore, we believe that the Bill, with the back-up of the guidance to which I have referred, is very robust in the area of concern to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I understand what the Minister says, but I notice that new subsection (5) has "may" as distinct from "must". New subsection (2) states that, where a young person has a statement of special educational needs, the authority "must" arrange for an assessment to be made, whereas, where they are believed to have special educational needs under the school action and school action plus programmes, the word used is "may", and therefore that is at the discretion of the local authority.

Lord Adonis: The noble Baroness is absolutely right that it is at the discretion of the local authority. However, new subsection (5) will need to be interpreted by local authorities in conjunction with new subsection (7), which states:
	"In exercising its functions under this section an authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State".
	As I said a moment ago, our guidance to local authorities will state that every young person with learning difficulties who is likely to benefit from an assessment should receive one.
	There may be a dispute about young people who are likely to benefit; that, I fear, is the state of affairs in the pre-16 statementing process. One of the grounds for appeal to SENDIST is refusal to carry out an assessment. As always in this area, there will inevitably be room for argument over how a local authority should exercise its discretion. The guidance from the Secretary of State, however, will be clear that authorities will be expected to carry out an assessment in respect of every young person with difficulties who is likely to benefit from one.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The Minister rightly says that there can be disputes with local authorities over what is and is not needed, and how far they should go. In speaking to Amendment No. 187, I made the distinction that there must be Chinese walls: a clear separation in local authorities between those who make the assessment of special educational needs and the carrying out of this assessment. There is an inherent conflict within an authority, and is important that local authorities should make that separation of function clear.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for his reply. Yet again we are asked to take what is going to be in guidance on trust, although I was pleased to hear that draft guidance is now available. It would be interesting to know when the Minister thinks that they may have consulted on that, and whether we might—

Lord Adonis: I have here 31 pages of the draft guidance, which I shall be happy to circulate to the noble Baroness immediately after these debates. My department is not to be found wanting on the provision of guidance.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I am sure that we all look forward to receiving it. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I circled the word "may" in proposed new subsection (5). I admit to being still somewhat at a loss as to why it is a duty to assess a young person with a statement, but only an expectation, however strongly it may be worded in guidance, if a young person is on a school action or school action plus programme. Again like the noble Baroness, I worry that any financial constraints faced by a local authority could make all the difference as to whether a young person can expect an assessment or not, especially as the LGA, in its briefing to the other place, said:
	"It is conceivable comments may be passed on the adequacy or otherwise of local authority SEN provision/ assessments under existing regulations".
	When we have read the draft guidance, we will see. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 186 to 189 not moved.]
	Clause 65 agreed to.
	Clause 66 [Careers education: information and advice]:

Baroness Morris of Bolton: moved Amendment No. 190:
	Clause 66, page 38, line 18, leave out from "manner" to end of line 25

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I also speak to the other amendments in my name in this group. Clause 66 amends Part 7 of the Education Act 1997, which requires state schools to provide all pupils with a programme of careers education, appropriate information and up-to-date reference materials related to career options. I have spoken of my belief that good careers advice is a must if we are to help all young people realise their potential. Our aim with these amendments is to provide impartial, professional advice which will be tailored to suit the needs of the young person.
	Amendment No. 190 would leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed new subsection (2B) to Section 43 of the 1997 Act. This would leave the clause more succinct, and still say everything that it needs to say; that is:
	"Any such information must be presented in an impartial manner".
	That would allow the young person to weigh up in his or her own mind which option may suit him best. Similarly, Amendment No. 191, which should be viewed as an alternative, would merely remove paragraph (b) because, if careers advice is both impartial and promotes the best interest of the pupil, it must logically not be promoting the interests of a particular school or institution. I hope that I have demonstrated our commitment on these Benches towards ensuring that straightforward, impartial advice is given to young people.
	Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 suggest that the advice that is given to young people in respect of their educational options should include encouragement to consider academic options, when appropriate, to study one or more A-level courses, provided that such courses would be in the best interests of the pupil. Amendment No. 193 deals with Oxbridge. As I said, advice should be impartial, but it must also contain information about different routes that a young person can take so that the pupil is fully informed.
	I mentioned Oxford and Cambridge by name because they are widely regarded as being the best universities in the world. Yet there appear to be alarming misconceptions in state schools about the opportunities for pupils to go to Oxbridge. Much more must be done to dispel the myth that is prevalent among many young people, and those who advise them, that Oxbridge is not for them. It becomes something of a vicious circle. We are all aware that there is an imbalance in terms of the socio-economic background of students at those institutions, but those from disadvantaged backgrounds seem to be reluctant even to consider applying. I have suggested this amendment in an attempt to stimulate equality of aspiration.
	Amendment No. 196 is straightforward. Clause 66(4) is about discharging a relevant duty. The school,
	"must ... have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State".
	There is a difference between "must" and "may". "Must" implies that the Government tell schools exactly what they should do and how, while "may" represents the Government encouraging good practice instead of interfering. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 191.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In general, we on these Benches disagree with the thrust of most of these Conservative amendments. It is clear that at present many young people are not getting good or appropriate careers advice. That stems partly from the breakdown, which we have already discussed, in the careers service since Connexions was established in the early part of 2000 and the deliberate decision at that time to concentrate on the group of pupils who were dropping out of school or college at the expense of the general run of young people who stayed in education and training. I am aware, as the Minister has stressed, that funds going to Connexions have been doubled in the past couple of years and that there has been a substantial improvement in the general service provided to the pupils who stay in school as distinct from the NEET group who were concentrated on earlier. As evidenced by the clause, the Government are anxious to ensure that young people get better careers advice.
	Partly because of the lack of advice available, many young people rely disproportionately on two sources of advice that are most readily available to them. First, there are the parents, immediate family and friends whose experience often triggers a career decision. That may be appropriate but by its very nature it is limited and encompasses only what this particular group knows about. Secondly, young people are very influenced by their own teachers, but many of them know nothing of the world of work outside school and teaching because they have gone straight from school into teacher training and back into school again. For many teachers, the right career path, which they have followed and therefore know about, is the path of GCSE, A-level and on to university, and they tend to advise their pupils accordingly. In particular, they are ignorant about the plethora of vocational courses available at further education colleges. Because young people do not know about such courses, they do not consider that alternative, which might be an appropriate route to gaining qualifications at level 2 or level 3.
	We support the Government in seeking to ensure that careers advice is impartial—under proposed new subsection (2B). That is an important part of the Bill that we do not wish to be cut out. Indeed, we go further in our Amendment No. 194. We think it is important not only that advice is impartial but also that teachers and tutors who have responsibility for giving careers advice should be properly trained for the job. The old jibe about PE teachers taking careers on on a part-time basis is unfair. Most schools and colleges take careers advice seriously, and those teachers who take on responsibility for careers education put in many hours getting themselves up to speed. However, it is not an easy function to take on part time, and it is important that those teachers have support from properly trained careers advisers who are not just available on the end of a telephone line, but are an active presence in the school and are available to offer specialist advice when required.
	Clause 66 essentially inserts a series of amendments into the Education Act 1997. Section 43 of that Act requires that all publicly funded schools provide programmes of careers education to 14 to 16 year-olds. Section 46 empowers the Secretary of State to extend the requirement below 14 and above 16. That power has recently been extended downwards to cover school years 7 to 11—11 to 16 year-olds—but, in England, it has not yet been extended forward to cover the post-16 years, years 12 and 13, although it has been so extended in Wales. Given the raising of the statutory leaving age from 16 to 18, it is surely necessary to do that. Amendment No. 197 was supposed to do that, but we regret to say that we misunderstood the briefing and found that we had merely repeated the existing clause rather than amended it. I apologise to the Committee for this mistake. We will bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report, unless the Minister is proposing to do so.
	Choices to participate in post-16 education will be about learning and future work. Young people must be supported in making those choices, whether at school, college or in workplace learning. The principles that we believe are essential if the proposed raising of the statutory leaving age is to be a success are that every young person must be assured of high quality careers education programmes delivered by teachers and tutors with appropriate training; comprehensive and impartial careers advice and information, including on opportunities for progressive post-18 education; and independent careers advice and guidance provided by appropriately trained careers guidance specialists working within the local authority's support services team.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: I offer my warmest support to Amendment No. 194, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I have seen some pretty awful careers advice, at least 30 years out of date, given by teachers who have not been given any specialist training. This training needs to be updated as employment opportunities develop so rapidly now. Hundreds of new employment opportunities are created every year as technology develops. Some of the most powerful careers advice is given by subject teachers to young people who are particularly excited by the subject they are being taught and who are looking for a career related to their interest in that subject. Those people have a key role to play. It is important that the advice which they give is up to date, professional and accurate.
	I offer particular support to Amendment No. 193, tabled by my noble friend. I know that the Sutton Trust has created a very healthy climate. It is generally accepted now that it is not enough just to get more young people from socially deprived areas to aspire to go on to higher education, but that we must incite those who are so qualified to go on to the Russell group universities and perhaps to Oxford or Cambridge if that is appropriate. I support and have worked with the work of the Sutton Trust in that aim.
	To give a vivid illustration of that, I remember a student who came to my college in Cambridge in 2001. She was a most remarkable young woman who had been living on the street. She had run away from unhappy home circumstances when she was 17. She dropped out of school, of course, and had lived for two and a half years on the street, which many experts say is beyond repair—that if you have lived that long on the streets, you will never be recoverable. Her formidable personality and, as it later proved, formidable intellect, caused her, as she put it, to wake up one morning and say to herself, "There has got to be more to life than this". She got herself together, she got a job in a bar serving as a barmaid and registered at her local sixth-form college, where she was immediately identified as an extraordinarily bright young person. Despite having missed two and a half years of schooling, she picked up an A-level course and was working for three A-levels, no less, in what she hoped would be a year and a half. She discovered, of course, that her two and a half years out made it very difficult for her to catch up with the other young people in the group, so she took even more hours working to pay for some private tuition for herself.
	As it happened, her tutor was a Cambridge PhD. After a few months of working with her, he said to her, "Do you know that you are bright enough to get into Cambridge if you want to?". She was terribly excited by that and went back to her sixth-form tutor and said, "My tutor says that I could try for Cambridge. What do you think about that?". To my horror, she told us that the reply from her sixth-form college tutor was, "Cambridge? Give me a match and I'd burn the place down. Nothing but snobs. You'd never fit in there with your background. Don't even think of it". At which point, in great distress, she went back to her private tutor and said, "My tutor at sixth-form college says that I could not possibly try for it". Fortunately, he encouraged her to go on trying. She came to us with three As at A-level that she got in 18 months after two and a half years on the street and was a star pupil.
	A story such as that convinces me that there are still teachers out in the system who are prepared actively to discourage people from Russell group applications. It is terribly important that they are encouraged—indeed, directed—to give appropriate advice to young people as to what kind of university they are suited to go to.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: Briefly, I support all the amendments. With the raising of the school leaving age, adequate—more than adequate—advice will play even more of a key role, as we have heard so graphically described, particularly in the story told to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry.
	We must not forget that quite a lot of work is already going on. Students at some universities are already going out to talk to schools where there are some able pupils coming from families where university, particularly the top universities, has not been thought of. That is excellent, because some role models are doing that here and now.
	I support all that has been said. We need proper training in independence, as well as in subjects, in life and in employment—employers should play a much greater role in coming to talk to colleges and universities than they do now, although even that is improving a great deal. I support the amendments.

Baroness Warnock: I support the amendments in spirit, but I have certain reservations about naming any universities or groups of universities in the Bill. That would be a disservice to those universities, especially Oxford and Cambridge, which have been working incredibly hard, not only recently but, to my certain knowledge, since the 1980s, to stretch out influence and persuade people from the maintained sector to apply to them. It may be counterproductive that any group of universities should be named. Nevertheless, the importance of giving appropriate and imaginative advice to young people is obvious. It is beyond value. It is enormously important.

Lord Adonis: The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, speaks with great authority in this area. In my time at Oxford, Hertford College, with which she was associated, was exemplary in the way in which it sought to encourage students from less advantaged backgrounds and from state schools in general to apply. In my experience, colleges in Oxford and Cambridge and other leading universities are doing an increasing amount to encourage students to participate. Their scale of outreach activities is wholly more ambitious than it was a generation ago, which is to be applauded.
	The example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is reprehensible but, I believe, very rare now. On my frequent visits to schools and colleges, I find that they go out of their way to highlight their highest attaining students who are going on to leading universities. They in no way hold back the progress of their students in the way that she suggested has occasionally happened.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, seeks to remove the part of Clause 66 that makes it explicit that schools, in giving advice, must not seek to promote their own interests over those of their pupils. However, her concerns are fully met by the clause, which explicitly addresses the issue by making it clear that the interests of young people must be paramount in all advice that is given. It emphatically does not mean, as the noble Baroness fears, that teachers and careers advisers cannot advise a young person that a particular option is best for them where they believe that it is. On the contrary, once a young person has been provided with information about all the options available, this is precisely what we would want, whether it would be for them to do three A-levels on their way to Oxbridge, as in the noble Baroness's example, to undertake a diploma or to consider undertaking an apprenticeship or other work-based options. That is why the clause explicitly says that the advice,
	"must be advice which the person giving it considers will promote the best interests of the pupils concerned".
	The noble Baroness's Amendment No. 192 seeks to ensure that schools should specifically promote the take-up of A-levels where they are in the best interests of the pupil. As I said, if a teacher feels that A-Levels were in the best interests of a young person, they would already be required by the clause to advise them of this. With this clause, we are not attempting to cut across teachers using their experience and understanding of a young person's abilities and interests to give them the best possible advice on the options available to them. On the contrary, they are required to give such advice.
	On Amendment No. 194 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I assure her that we will publish guidance to support the strengthened duty in the clause. Schools will be required to have regard to that duty, which will include a set of core principles to underpin their delivery of impartial and high-quality careers advice. As part of this, we will develop appropriate in-service training to ensure that all teachers, including the subject teachers mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, have a good understanding of 14-to-19 options and of progression pathways and career opportunities linked to their subject.
	Separate to these measures to improve the careers advice delivered by school staff, schools are already required to provide access to careers specialists under Section 44 of the Education Act 1997. In practice, these careers services are delivered by Connexions personal advisers. We expect that this will continue as local authorities assume control of Connexions. In addition, the power to direct under Clause 55 will enable us to set minimum standards of qualifications for the Connexions personal advisers who provide this guidance and support.
	The draft directions that we propose to issue state that,
	"as a minimum each personal adviser must have or be actively working towards an NVQ level 4 (or equivalent) in a relevant discipline and have undertaken relevant appropriate assessment training".
	Following Royal Assent, we will consult widely on the content of these directions, including on the minimum qualifications. I believe that this will meet the concerns of the noble Baroness.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Section 46 of the 1997 Act, as extended, covers years 7 to 11, ages 11 to 16, but does not provide for careers education to those who are older than 16. Will that be amended?

Lord Adonis: The noble Baroness is right that we do not propose to legislate to require the provision of information beyond the age of 16, although we considered doing so in the context of the 14-to-19 reforms. We decided not to legislate because, in practice, schools and colleges are already providing careers education post-16 and we have no evidence of a problem of impartiality in this area. We are also implementing substantial measures alongside this Bill to strengthen careers education, including for post-16, and information, advice and guidance more generally. The measures include work to embed the information, advice and guidance quality standards; publication of the guidance mentioned in this clause; and linking success in the 14-to-19 gateway process to evidence of the availability of robust information, advice and guidance.
	Notwithstanding all that, we have commissioned Ofsted to undertake a thematic review of information, advice and guidance provision, which will commence shortly and report specifically on the quality of the careers support provided to post-16 learners. We will review the need for further legislation in the light of Ofsted's findings.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. This has been a short but worthwhile debate in which many of us have aired our concerns and disagreements. I am sorry that I forgot to say when I spoke initially that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about proper training for those who give careers advice in our schools. As for encouraging young people to apply to our best universities, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that this is a probing amendment. As she says, it would be wrong to name certain universities in the Bill. The ambitious outreach of universities must be matched by ambitions within our schools. I was therefore pleased to hear the Minister say that the graphic example given by my noble friend Lady Perry would be extremely rare in the present day. I have been encouraged by the Minister's reply to my concerns and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 191 to 194 not moved.]

Lord Tunnicliffe: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Welfare Reform

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place on the Government's Green Paper, No One Written Off: Reforming Welfare to Reward Responsibility. The Statement is as follows:
	"The welfare state is a vital part of the fabric of our country. We take pride in it. It is how we come together as a nation to support those who are vulnerable and in need of help. But our welfare system has not always kept pace with the changes in our society. In preserving some of the structures inherited from its founders, we have neglected their principles.
	"William Beveridge's contract for welfare had three founding ideas: first, that revolutionary times called for revolution, not patching, and, secondly, that welfare was about more than just income. He wanted to topple not just want, but the other four giants of disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. These became the defining issues for the Attlee Government and inspired that Administration's creation of the welfare state.
	"But perhaps, over time, Beveridge's third principle was lost. He was emphatically clear that the system of social security should not stifle incentive, opportunity and responsibility. The purpose of the welfare state was to help people in need today so that they could reduce their need tomorrow. From the 1960s onwards that third principle was eroded. The nadir came in the 1980s when all conditions were removed from unemployment benefit and unemployment rose to more than 3 million, much further than it needed to have done.
	"In 1997, we inherited an essentially passive welfare state. Since then, we have been turning it into an active one. This Green Paper completes that transformation. It is based on the marriage of two simple ideas: more support and more responsibility, the root of a fair system for claimants and the taxpayer, and it aims to meet five main goals.
	"The first is to end the idea that there is a choice between claiming and working. Instead, the longer people claim, the more we will expect in return. At three months and six months, claimants will intensify their job search and have to comply with a back to work action plan. After a year, they will be transferred to an outside provider who will be paid by results. Claimants will have to work for their benefits for at least four weeks, and longer if the provider requires it. For the 2 per cent who we anticipate to be still out of work after two years, we will explore mandatory full-time work programmes and other approaches such as daily signing. We will give our advisers the power to use full-time work as a sanction at any stage of a claim for those who are abusing the system. We will improve treatment for those who have a problem with crack cocaine and opiates, but require them to take up that treatment.
	"We know our support works, but we also know that conditionality works. By getting more people to take up this support, we can increase employment and reduce poverty. When we introduced the New Deal, we started to end the idea that people could claim benefits indefinitely when there was work available. As long-term youth claimant unemployment fell by nearly 80 per cent, we extended that principle to other workers. As a result, we now have more people in work than ever before. Claimant unemployment has been nearly halved, saving £5 billion a year. Nine out of 10 people leave jobseeker's allowance within 12 months of claiming. Work works, and it is only fair that we make sure a life on benefits is not an option.
	"The second goal is to ensure that no one is written off. In 1979, there were around 700,000 people on incapacity benefits. By 1997, the total had risen to 2.5 million, and was going up by 50,000 every year. We have reversed that trend and the number on IB is now the lowest it has been for eight years. Annually, nearly 400,000 fewer people are flowing on to incapacity benefit compared with 1997. We have created the Pathways to Work programme which helps people to improve their health, adapt to their condition, rebuild their confidence and look for work. We know that it works and have made it mandatory for all new claimants. We have legislated to abolish incapacity benefit and replace it with the employment and support allowance. This new benefit treats people as individuals. It looks to see what people can do, not what they cannot.
	"Today, I am announcing that we will migrate everyone from incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance between 2010 and 2013, with personalised support based on our successful pathways programme. We will review the medical test to ensure that it reflects the latest evidence that work is generally good for people's well-being and we will reassess all existing claimants to ensure that they are on the right benefit for them. Those who are ready to work will move on to jobseeker's allowance. Those with the greatest needs will get a higher benefit rate, up from £86.35 to £102.10, and will be able to volunteer for Pathways to Work. We will increase funding for our specialist training programmes and for supported employment. Everyone else will get personalised help based on the pathways programme to get them back to health and back to work, but they will be required to take up this help and look for work where a doctor recommends it. These changes will mean that for the first time ever, no one will be abandoned to their fate just to get by on benefits. For the vast majority, ESA will be a temporary benefit, not a permanent snare.
	"Our third goal is to transform the rights of disabled people. Disabled people do not want to be told that they cannot work. Instead, they want society to remove the discrimination that makes it harder for them to work. So, we will double the Access to Work budget, paying for sign language interpreters, specialised IT or help with mobility. Our aspiration is that everyone who could benefit should be able to do so. We will consult on a new right to control. We know that individual budgets work, and I want to give disabled people the right to know how much the state is spending on them, and request that money be given to them as a budget that they control. We want to put disabled people in control, not under the control of others.
	"The fourth goal is to strengthen parental responsibility. We have lifted 600,000 children out of poverty, and following the £1 billion invested in the Budget are set to help another 500,000. But we need to strengthen family life too. So, for the first time, we will allow parents on benefits to keep all their maintenance payments and we will require both parents to register the birth of their child. Together with our changes to lone parent benefits, we estimate that these welfare reforms will lift 200,000 children out of poverty.
	"Finally, we propose to devolve power so that services can be personalised to the needs of the individual. We want a triple devolution: to our advisers, to our providers, and to local communities. Jobcentre Plus is recognised as one of the best back-to-work agencies in the world. Its staff have unrivalled knowledge of their customers and their needs, so we will give our advisers greater flexibility over how much time they spend with each client. We will offer our providers the right to bid for any part of our services they think they could do better and we will give local communities the chance to shape how back-to-work services are delivered in their area.
	"And most of all, we will implement all the reforms in the Freud report, the report which inspires this Green Paper. We will release the creative energy of the private, public and voluntary sectors. By paying them out of the benefit savings that they generate, we will free our providers to help even more of our customers back into work.
	"And, as David Freud recommended, we will simplify the bewildering complexity of the benefits system. We propose to abolish income support and move current customers onto JSA, as resources allow. The result will be a dual system of working age benefits. ESA will offer the right help for sick and disabled people, and JSA will do the same for those actively seeking work or with caring responsibilities. The conditionality regime would be appropriate to each and would not change for carers or parents of younger children.
	"Today's publication marks the beginning of the consultation process. We want these proposals to be shaped by the opinions of the public and the expertise of charities, providers and academics. In the past, people were able, in many cases encouraged, to spend a lifetime on benefits. Once they had signed on, the welfare system all too often switched off. There was no expectation that anything should change, and precious little support to make it happen. This Green Paper ends all that. It puts us on the road to our ambition of an 80 per cent employment rate, with a million people off incapacity benefit by 2015, the eradication of child poverty by 2020, and equality for disabled people by 2025.
	"And it will restore Beveridge's third principle, the principle of incentive, opportunity and responsibility to where it should always have been: at the centre of the welfare state. For that reason, it will transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. I commend this Green Paper to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. However, I was disappointed, although not particularly surprised, that the Government chose, once again, to make the Statement first of all to the press rather than to Parliament. Indeed, they engaged with the press and TV so much over the weekend that the Secretary of State for Works and Pensions was able to adjust his second round of articles for the media in response to the criticism levied in the first.
	The Minister may think that I am being slightly unfair. After all, it is possible that the Secretary of State always intended his article in the Guardian this morning carefully to avoid any mention of increased individual responsibility, in contrast to that in the Mail on Sunday, which stated it loud and clear. Either way, it is not unfair to ask whether the Minister really believes that the Government take the role of Parliament seriously in the light of the premature appearance of the Green Paper on Friday and the extent of the Government's subsequent briefing of the press.
	Even to someone who had not read the media coverage, the Statement would not contain many surprises. So many policies have been lifted by the Government from my own party over the past year, from inheritance tax to policies on crime, that they are too numerous to list in full here—but the Statement adds a large handful more. It will therefore come as no shock to the Minister or your Lordships that we support the Government in what they are trying to achieve. I am glad that they have looked again at our suggested changes to the benefit system, and have decided that schemes such as work programmes for those out of work for a long period of time are not as unworkable as they claimed in January when we first announced them.
	A few of the policies go back even further than that. We have always supported the recommendations that David Freud made in his report last year, and we are glad that he appears to be back in favour after it became clear that the previous Prime Minister's understanding and support of Freud's recommendations were not matched by that of his successor. I can repeat here the promise of my honourable friend in another place, Chris Grayling, that we on these Benches will support any government legislation that is needed to implement these proposals.
	As the Statement says, some of the legislative framework is in place already. Your Lordships will no doubt remember the Welfare Reform Act 2007 where, before Freud's report fell from favour, the necessary provisions for the implementation of the employment and support allowance were passed with the full support of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. The Government have taken a year to answer the question we posed then of when they will actually implement those provisions and complete the transfer from incapacity benefit, but it is all the more welcome for the delay.
	Will the Government need more legislation in order to implement the other goals laid out in the Statement? Are the Government fully committed this time to implementing these reforms so that we do not have the sort of stop-start enthusiasm that has dogged welfare reform for the past decade? For example, has the Minister's department cleared with the Treasury the necessary funding to ensure that support programmes necessary to help those currently out of work and on benefits are going to be properly resourced?
	With the economy starting to feel the effects of the Prime Minister's years of mismanagement, it will not be easy for many who have never been on benefits to keep their jobs, let alone for those who are working to overcome disability to find new ones. I hope the Government will not perform yet another U-turn when they realise that they cannot implement our proposals only halfway but must fully commit to ensuring properly resourced support infrastructure before any savings on benefits can actually be appreciated.
	I should like to press the Minister on the Government's future intentions. The Government have accepted in this Green Paper what we have said for a long time: that ensuring that children are not brought up in workless families is one of the most effective ways to ensure that children are not brought up in poverty. Today we have heard the extremely welcome news that the Government have finally accepted that family life needs to be strengthened, and that this, too, is a critical route to ending child poverty. Does that mean that the Government will accept the Conservative policy to end the couple penalty in the tax credit system?

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, I am pleased to respond to the Statement and I am happy to give the proposals a cautious welcome. The Green Paper is ambitious, but lots of it is aspirational and tentative and we will need to wait and see how the detail works out. For me, what has changed in the past few years about this whole subject area, which is an important part of public policy, is Dame Carol Black's important work that suggests that sustainable, worthwhile work is actually good for people's health. That principle is now well accepted, and in so far as the Green Paper takes the principle forward, it is welcome—but the work has to be worth while and sustainable.
	I have three sets of questions for the Minister. The Statement, however welcome, may cause some apprehension among those who have intermittent health conditions. Will he give the House an assurance that the new work capability assessments that will be introduced in the autumn will feature more of the psychosocial side of the assessment as well as the medical, so that claimants can be given some comfort that their proper circumstances will be taken into account in a holistic way? That is an important part of the bargain that the Green Paper offers.
	Secondly, I am very pleased to hear that decentralisation and discretion will be devolved to a local level; that is an important part of the proposals. There is a world of difference between the labour markets in Norfolk and in Greater Manchester. If conditionality is a part of the package, then sanctioning people where there are no jobs would be completely contrary to natural justice. We need some reassurance about that.
	Finally, the Minister said with a flourish—if that is the right word—that he was doubling access to work. Access to work is an essential plank in getting employers the support they need to play their part; if they do not come to the table with jobs, none of this will work. We are spending £69 million in 2008-09, as I think the Minister will confirm, which currently helps 24,000 people. Doubling that figure to roughly £140 million in the fiscal year 2009-10 would merely—if I can put it that way—help 48,000 people. The extent to which employers need support to get worthwhile sustainable work must not be underestimated by the Government because if they do, they risk failing. That would be a shame because the people who would suffer most would be those who most need help from the benefits that could flow from the Statement if it is implemented sensitively and properly.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for what I take to be support for the thrust of the Green Paper. Let me first deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. He asked whether the Government take the role of Parliament seriously in all this. Of course they do. I do not know who was involved in leaking what to the press over the weekend or before. The reality is that issues surrounding welfare reform have been debated in the public arena for a long while. It is important that these matters are properly dealt with through Parliament; hence the Statement today.
	The noble Lord said that these proposals were lifted from Conservative policies and claimed Freud as justification for that. It was this Government who commissioned the Freud report in the sense that it was part of the analysis that we sought to undertake.
	The noble Lord asked about further legislation. A number of the proposals in the Green Paper would require primary legislation and a Bill would be brought forward at the first opportunity. He asked whether everything will be implemented. This is a Green Paper: we want to consult on the proposals, some of which are more advanced and entrenched in the thinking than others. It is important that we get a wide input from a range of stakeholders, which has traditionally been the way we have engaged in welfare reform. Noble Lords who were involved in the proceedings of what is now the Welfare Reform Act 2007 will attest to the fact that that is very much part of the Government's approach.
	The noble Lord asked whether HMT has signed off the proposals. All the proposals in the Green Paper have been agreed by the Treasury. He also asked whether the Government will support the end of the couple penalty in tax credits. The tax credits system is a matter for the Treasury and outside the scope of the Green Paper. However, the Green Paper contains proposals for additional work support for partners of benefit claimants; we know how important it is with regard to child poverty to have both members of a couple working. That is one way forward.
	I do not think that either noble Lord commented on the fact that there is an unlimited disregard for child maintenance. We debated that during the proceedings of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill quite recently and I hope that it will also be welcomed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, talked about Dame Carol Black's report. It is ground-breaking and we are hoping to respond to it across government in October. We have already announced some aspects of it that we will support—in particular, the fit-for-work service and the piloting around that. It is a central part of these reforms to recognise that work is generally good for people's health and well-being and is the best route out of poverty. That is a cornerstone of these reforms and of the active welfare state.
	The noble Lord asked about intermittent health conditions and whether the work capability assessment would take account of them. The answer is yes. We touched on that in part in our welfare reform debates last year; it is not a snapshot—it takes account of the effects of the person's condition over time.
	The noble Lord talked about decentralisation. Again, that is absolutely right. Clearly, job advisers should not be pursuing sanctions if there are no jobs available. Notwithstanding the challenging economic climate, the job market has been pretty buoyant. I am not sure what the current vacancies are across the country—I think that it is about 650,000. Part of the decentralisation is to work through city strategies so that you have local partnerships with people who really know what is happening on the ground and are best placed to help to pursue some of these ideas.
	As the noble Lord identified, we are doubling the budget to Access to Work, which will be a major expansion of the support that we can offer to disabled people to help them to get and sustain employment. Our estimate is that it will expand the programme's capacity to around 48,000 people by 2013-14. There is a gradual increase in the budget starting in 2009-10, through to 2013.
	I hope that that has dealt with the points that the noble Lords raised and thank them again for their support for this Green Paper.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, following the point made by my noble friend, it is clear that these proposals were leaked in advance. Frankly, the Minister's reply carries no credibility; the Government should just admit that that is the case.
	On the substance, the Minister talks of a back-to-work action plan and says that claimants after a year will be transferred to an outside provider, who will be paid by results. If changes such as that are so deeply obvious to the present Government, why was it that throughout the 1980s and the 1990s official spokesmen of the party opposite did everything in their power to oppose any steps in the direction that they now propose? The Minister says that in 1997 the present Government inherited a passive welfare state, whatever that may mean, but is not the real position that Ministers have only now woken up to what we were describing more than a decade ago?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am bound to say that I find that contribution quite extraordinary. In terms of inheriting a passive welfare state, that is exactly the position: the numbers of people on incapacity benefit—and I gave them when I gave the Statement—had grown inexorably over two decades. They continued to grow after 1997 for a while, until we were able to reverse that trend. That was all focused, originally, on trying to get people off the unemployment statistics, because of the two recessions that the noble Lord's party was responsible for, when it was in government. But it did nothing to help those people. We are still now having to deal with those challenges; people were put on incapacity benefit, paid a bit more if they had been on it for a year and effectively consigned to the scrap heap; they were given no support to move back towards the labour market. Many of them, irrespective of their health conditions, were perfectly able to move towards the labour market and to go into work. We have transformed that situation.
	There is more to do—and the Statement is very much focused on what more there is to do. But it is bizarre for the noble Lord to challenge us and ask why we have just woken up to these things. We have been engaged with these things since 1997 and the new deal.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I welcome the broad thrust of the Statement. I entirely agree with my noble friend about the well-being that comes from work. The section "Work for your benefit" includes a section on lone parents, but of course lone parents are working for their benefit. They are bringing up children; they are just not engaged in waged work.
	I am obviously delighted about the full maintenance disregard—a sort of privatised tax credit as long as the money actually flows—but I have two questions for my noble friend about the proposal for lone parents. When their youngest child is seven, they are expected to be available for the labour market. Given that a seven year-old is too small to walk to school alone, it means that the lone parent must seek work, for the most part, within the hours of 10 am and 2 pm. Such jobs, particularly in rural areas, are like gold dust. What work is my noble friend doing with employers to ensure that lone parents have such hours of work available to them?
	Secondly, so that they do not then drop out at every half term, lone parents will need childcare that is not only flexible but trusted. In rural areas, that is more likely to be care from grandparents than from any other body. I accept that it is probably too costly at present to go for a childcare tax credit payment to grandparents who do significant caring, but would my noble friend take back to the department the proposal that, at the very least, a grandparent caring for, say, 20 hours a week should get a national insurance credit towards the basic state pension, so that as a result of helping her daughter to work, that grandparent does not herself lose her own pension rights?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, my noble friend touches on an important area. First, the proposed flexible new deal makes sure that the individual circumstances of claimants can be taken into account. It is not "one size fits all". Certainly, for parents with young children, recognising the support that those young children need in getting to and from school should be reflected in the sort of work that an individual is encouraged to do. This proposal also fits alongside a considerable expansion in childcare provision—by 2010, wraparound childcare at school between 8 am and 6 pm all year round.
	On the role of employers, again, my noble friend is absolutely right. One of the roles of local employment partnerships is to help people who have been away from the labour market for some time and build flexibility into the arrangements. It is focused on people with disabilities and lone parents. That has to be part of the equation. My noble friend bowled a fast ball in terms of grandparents and national insurance contributions. The best that I can say is that we will take the issue back and discuss it further.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on these measures, which are very bold and rather bolder than anything any previous Conservative Government thought to introduce. Perhaps that was because of the vehemence of opposition from the Labour Party at that time.
	I have a question about the withdrawal of benefit. What happens to a single person who is not in receipt of any other benefit who then has his jobseeker's allowance taken away? Will anything be done to stop that person starving on the street? Will the Government consider bringing in food vouchers as has been done in the United States?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: No, my Lords, that is not part of our proposals. Benefit sanctions are not new. They exist at the moment and people cope. Evidence shows that once someone has been sanctioned, overwhelmingly they tend not to be sanctioned a second time. It is an important issue. Withdrawal of benefit should be done only on the basis of clear guidelines and a clear understanding of what the system requires and what the conditionality is. Some of the evidence is that that is not always well understood, so part of what we must be about is to make sure that there is good communication about the rights, responsibilities and boundaries of the system.

Lord Low of Dalston: My Lords, there are a number of things to welcome about the Green Paper, which is the subject of the Statement repeated by the noble Lord. I warmly welcome the doubling of the Access to Work budget, which will be able to do a great deal more not only to enable disabled people to get into work, but to prevent those at risk of losing their job when they become disabled from falling out of the workforce.
	Conditionality depends very much on the adequacy of support to enable people who are far from the labour market to get closer to it. We shall monitor that very closely. I was disappointed that the Green Paper contained no reference to removing the anomaly whereby registered blind people are not eligible for the higher rate of the mobility component of disability living allowance. Constructive discussions have taken place between the RNIB and the Government about the removal of this anomaly. I declare an interest as chairman of the RNIB. I understood that the Government felt they were not in a position to fund the removal of this anomaly at present. However, during the discussions going right up to the publication of the Green Paper today, I understood that the Government were committed to remove the anomaly at the earliest possible date. I apologise to the noble Lord that I missed the first few minutes of his repetition of the Statement; I was listening to the discussion of it in the other place. The Secretary of State was asked about the removal of the anomaly. All he could say was that he was not against its removal in principle and would continue to work to deliver that. That does not seem to me to be in the spirit of the constructive discussions between the RNIB and the Government to which I referred.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord any greater comfort than did the Secretary of State in another place. We are sympathetic to the RNIB's proposals and are aware of the public and parliamentary support for them. While we acknowledge that severely sight-impaired people may have mobility difficulties, especially as regards helping them to enter or remain in paid employment, we are not able to commit to any changes in the mobility component of DLA at this time. We certainly believe that enabling all disabled people, including those with visual impairments, into employment through increased provision for access to work should remain our priority. That is why the Green Paper commits us to provide additional funding on the basis that we just discussed.
	We are very grateful for the time and effort given by the RNIB in pressing its case. This effort has not been wasted. We hope that we can continue to work collaboratively during the Green Paper consultation period to ensure that our programme of welfare reform adequately meets the needs of blind people. I am conscious that is not the statement the noble Lord hoped for, but it is as far as I can go this afternoon.

Lord Rowlands: My Lords, as president of the National Training Federation for Wales, I offer a rather different view on the Freud report. Given that in the past week we have seen the fiasco of a large American company hopelessly fail effectively to deliver SATs results, why does my noble friend believe that large American manpower companies will be able to deliver the welfare-to-work programmes more efficiently and more effectively than local providers, who know their communities and those communities' needs, because that will be the consequence of implementing Freud?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it does not necessarily follow that we will end up with large US multinational providers. We already have private sector providers doing a good job. What is important is how we go about the contracting arrangements, particularly how we hold private sector providers to account. However, this is about not only private sector providers but also the public and voluntary sectors. Over the past 18 months I have had the opportunity to visit interesting schemes in which the voluntary sector is providing huge support to people to get them back to work. Someone who was out of work for 15 years was helped back into employment, which transformed that person's life. So good work is going on. However, my noble friend makes a fair point. We need to be careful to ensure that we do not end up in the situation to which he referred.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I wonder whether I may follow up a point made by my noble friend Lady Hollis. Other parts of government are most concerned with the importance of the family as a factor in reducing the irresponsible, anti-social behaviour particularly of teenagers. How can the Minister reconcile that with the idea of making a single woman on benefit go to work if one of her children is merely seven years old? Surely, if she does work—as the only adult in the family—she will not be available to care for and mentor her child as he approaches the teenage years and in the teenage years? What does that mean for the significance and availability of the family to those young people, which other parts of the Government seem to think is so important?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, that does not necessarily follow, and I do not fully agree with my noble friend. Obviously, many lone parents—something like 1 million—are currently in work. It comes back, in part, to the need for there to be flexibility around the arrangements for lone parents. I would hang on to the point that not only is work generally good for someone's health and self-esteem, it is invariably the best route out of poverty. In terms of support for the family, helping people into and helping them to sustain work is also supportive of families.

Baroness Thomas of Winchester: My Lords, I very much welcome the increased resources and funding for Access to Work, which is so important. Will the noble Lord make sure that it is properly publicised? When I spoke on the Welfare Reform Act last year, I said that it was one of the least known about aspects of getting disabled people back into work, but it is very useful. This announcement is extremely welcome, but it needs to be well publicised among disabled people and employers.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, who made a good point. Access to Work is not known about widely enough, by either employers or employees. We need to make sure that the message gets out there, because it is already making a real difference to many people's lives, and it could do so much more.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining the Government's intentions with all his customary care and clarity. We hear much about the overclaiming of benefits, but nothing about underclaiming by frail, elderly or disabled people who are afraid of being accused of abusing the system. Has the department made any estimate of the extent of underclaiming, which often relates to frail, elderly people living alone, whose benefits go unclaimed?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, there are estimates of underclaim, particularly around the claiming of pension credit, but I am afraid that I do not have them in front of me. I am happy to write to the noble Lord. Again, the department has done a lot of work in campaigns to make people aware and to target people who might be entitled to benefit but who are not claiming.
	In relation to overclaiming of benefits and fraud, that data hit the headlines. I think it is now at an all-time low. I have forgotten the percentage, but I think it is around 0.6 per cent of the total benefits bill. There have been considerable improvements in tackling fraud, but we need to keep up the pressure. We also need to make it easier for people to claim. Work is being done to enable people to claim pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit at the same time, as one claim, to make it easier to claim. In the Pensions Bill, on which we have had interesting debates in recent weeks, there is provision for not needing to update claims. When someone reaches the age of 75, the information that is locked in the system continues. Work is being done on the important point raised by my noble friend.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I warmly welcome the thinking underlying this Green Paper. Does the Minister agree that it reflects a simple political maxim: it is immoral for any Government to hand out benefits to those who do not need them at the expense of those who do? Does he recognise that in the looming public sector cash crisis it will be necessary to follow up this Green Paper with vigour and rigour, and as rapidly as possible, to ensure that those who need help get it? Finally, will he send a copy of the Green Paper to President Sarkozy, because it might give him some ideas on how to deal with the much more intractable problem of the much more unsustainable welfare system in France?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, on the last point, I think that I shall pass: it is outwith my responsibility. The noble Lord is right; rights and responsibilities are at the heart of these proposals. The state has an obligation to help people into work, if they are able to work, and to support them in doing so, but it is not right that people who could engage do not engage and live a life on benefits. That is very clear; I touched on that in the Statement. There is a balance in all of this. It is very important that in the current age we clearly set down those boundaries and help people to understand that there are rights but that there are responsibilities as well.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, how far have the Government gone in their discussions with employers' organisations about providing jobs? We know from the days of the Manpower Services Commission, in which I was involved many years ago, that it is not at all easy to provide jobs for people who are being made to work compulsorily. A great many jobs will be needed and they will have to be motivating and interesting. How far have the Government gone on this issue, or have they not yet begun to consult?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: No, my Lords, a lot of work has gone on. I referred earlier to local employment partnerships. I am not quite sure how many companies have signed up to them, but many have done. The deal is that the Government help to make sure that people have the skills and are equipped to undertake the jobs that are on offer. Companies that have signed up to the agreement do what they can to give those people an opportunity to take up those jobs. That is happening at a national level. Many other initiatives are happening via the city strategies and local strategic partnerships, whereby local councils in conjunction with the DWP and other agencies are working to help people who have been disadvantaged and away from the job market move towards it. That applies particularly to people with mental health conditions. A lot of work is going on, but a lot more needs to be done, particularly around mental health and unemployment. A working party led by Dame Carol Black has produced its first report and is moving on to further challenges and to see what further policy prescriptions are needed.

Education and Skills Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 66.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: moved Amendment No. 195:
	Clause 66, page 38, line 25, at end insert ", and
	( ) any such advice and information should not be limited on grounds of disability, gender, sexual orientation, race and religion or belief, and( ) any such advice should be accompanied by an offer of a work experience placement in a non-traditional sector, details of which will be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.";"

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: This is a probing amendment suggested by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Its purpose is to encourage debate on, and awareness of, the need to improve and broaden careers advice and to challenge continuing stereotypes regarding gender, disability, race and the other areas covered by the commission. By making this amendment to the Bill, we would, at the same time, promote equality of opportunity in its broadest sense.
	Currently, some careers advice continues to make assumptions about the expectations and abilities of certain groups of young people and, as a result, directs them into work that is often low-paid and of a low status. Can the Minister explain how this will be dealt with in the guidance that is being developed at present, and can he give a commitment that work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission on this will continue until the guidance is complete?
	The Government's welcome aim in raising the school leaving age to 18 will, it is hoped, reduce the number of young people who are NEETs, but the Bill also provides a very welcome opportunity to address persistent underachievement among certain groups and individuals identified by the equalities review. One particular problem is stereotyping according to gender, race and so on. That certainly continues to channel certain groups into occupational segregation, which, without doubt, leads to a loss of potential for both individuals and the economy. For example, the EOC, when it was in existence, found that, although more women than men are now entering the professions of medicine and the law, for many girls—particularly those who are entering jobs through vocational pathways—there has been little significant change in recent years, with only 1 per cent of women in construction and only 22 girls enrolling for plumbing apprenticeships in England in 2004. As we know, the same is true in reverse for men, who, for example, make up only 2 per cent of the childcare workforce.
	Such segregation is also pronounced for ethnic minorities, as research shows that about a quarter of ethnic minorities are employed in the distribution or hotel and restaurant industry sectors, compared with less than a fifth of white people. For disabled young people, research also shows that, although the scope and level of aspirations among disabled 16 year-olds are similar to those of their non-disabled counterparts, at age 26, disabled people are nearly four times as likely to be unemployed as non-disabled people. I hope that a lot of that will be put right by the announcement that has been made today. However, among those in employment, earnings are 11 per cent lower for disabled people than for their non-disabled counterparts with the same level of educational qualifications.
	At the same time as training and labour markets are characterised by occupational segregation, industry is experiencing major skills shortages. It is significant that sectors with the lowest number of women are also those experiencing severe skills shortages. I am sure your Lordships will be aware that engineering, for example, is an area where we have not moved anything like as fast as we should have done following the reports on the engineering industry that came out some 30 years ago.
	The amendment would also place in the Bill the offer of a non-traditional work placement. We believe that work experience placements are vital in the choices that young people make, as they can be very much influenced by what they see. If they are unable to go somewhere to test their skills, they can at least see how the work operates. However, EOC research found that only 15 per cent of girls and boys received any advice on work placements in areas dominated by the other sex.
	I hope the Committee will consider that this is an important area to discuss, and I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister says about its future. I beg to move.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in all aspects of her amendment. On Second Reading I mentioned research carried out by the YWCA which showed that the three lowest-paid apprenticeships were filled almost entirely by women, while 99 per cent of the highest-paid apprenticeships were—surprise, surprise—filled by men. We must do all we can to break down gender stereotyping and the other issues that the noble Baroness raised.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We on these Benches also support the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. The YWCA's briefing notes that Ofsted evaluated the young apprenticeships programme and reported that, in over half the partnerships inspected in 2006-07, strategies to tackle gender stereotyping were either non-existent or had very limited success. In most vocational subjects the number of participants was dominated by one gender. Ofsted has recommended that gender stereotyping be tackled rigorously in the different vocational areas. The statistics clearly illustrate what we need to tackle. It is extremely important that in the push to expand apprenticeships we open up all these areas and end gender stereotyping.

Lord Adonis: Amendment No. 195 of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, seeks to ensure that the careers advice that schools provide is not limited on the grounds of disability, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion or belief and that stereotyping of all kinds is robustly challenged through work experience placements. I entirely agree with what she said. Clause 66 places the young person's interests firmly at the centre of careers education, advice and guidance and introduces a new requirement for maintained schools to have regard to statutory guidance in fulfilling their duty to provide careers education and information. We intend this guidance to include as one of its core principles an expectation that careers advice should actively challenge gender, race, disability and other stereotyping. When the Bill is enacted we will consult on the detailed content of this document and ensure that key stakeholders, such as the YWCA and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, are fully consulted.
	As for requiring an offer of work experience in a non-traditional sector, evidence from our 2006-07 data on work experience unsurprisingly show that most young people are fairly conventional in their choices. For example, 19,000 boys—but only 1,500 girls—went on construction placements, while 20,000 girls, compared with only 2,000 boys, took up hair and beauty placements. We should certainly not be seeking to encourage young people to go against their own careers preferences, but it is important not to stereotype. That is why the QCA's framework for work-related learning specifically promotes the idea that learners should be given a wide range of opportunities to explore different occupations and sectors in their work experience. This underpins our policy that all young people should participate in work experience. Ninety five per cent of them do so, amounting to over 500,000 placements a year.
	In addition, last year's Children's Plan outlined measures to present young people with more exciting and challenging careers education in school. Opportunities such as taster sessions are intended to broaden their horizons. Detailed planning will start this autumn, with the intention of trying out and evaluating different approaches and writing this up as best practice for schools to be available by 2010. Some £250,000 of development funding has been budgeted for this purpose. It will then be for schools to take note of the good practice and make these opportunities available as they see fit, with the support and guidance of local 14-19 partnerships. I hope that this meets the objectives that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, set out in her opening remarks.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am most grateful to Members of the Committee who supported the amendment and to the Minister. He has given the assurance that I was hoping for. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 196 and 197 not moved.]
	Clause 66 agreed to.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: moved Amendment No. 198:
	After Clause 66, insert the following new Clause—
	"Personal, social and health education
	In section 84 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32) (curriculum requirements for first, second and third key stages), after subsection (3)(g), insert—
	"(ga) personal, social and health education, and"."

Baroness Garden of Frognal: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 199, which is in the group. The new clause would add personal, social and health education—PSHE—as statutory subjects within the national curriculum at key stages 3 and 4. This proposal has been raised from these Benches previously, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley has long been an enthusiastic and vocal champion of PSHE as a vital part of a child's education. The Bill now provides an opportunity for this to be put into effect.
	For PSHE to become a statutory part of the curriculum, it is estimated that there should be a minimum requirement of an hour a week, incorporating the existing statutory requirements for education in sex and relationships, drugs and alcohol, as well as careers guidance. From Ofsted reports we know that the quality of PSHE education as it currently stands is extremely variable and not universally well taught. Under this amendment, PSHE would become a teaching specialism, with initial teacher training set up to ensure a high-quality teaching workforce. That would raise the profile of the subject and reinforce the Government's commitment to promote pupil well-being.
	The National Children's Bureau reports messages that it has received from young people talking about what they want to learn, and it has come up with five categories of what they want to learn. The first is "to stay safe"—how to build safe relationships, learning about risk and responsibility. The second is "to be healthy", which includes dealing with pressure and stress. It is about healthy minds and healthy bodies. Thirdly, young people want to make a positive contribution and to learn skills for being confident and outgoing and how to make decisions. The fourth category is "to achieve economic well-being"—how to manage a home and finances and avoid debt. If ever that were necessary, surely this is an occasion, as the country faces tight times, when young people need to know how to manage finances. The last category was "to enjoy and achieve". That includes communication, motivation and the confidence to try new things.
	The school curriculum should enable young people to acquire the skills and the knowledge they need to achieve those aims and to equip them to be successful learners, confident individuals and responsible citizens—in short, to deliver the outcomes of Every Child Matters. In the course of that they would acquire self-respect and learn to respect others. We read all too frequently—it is almost a daily occurrence—of young people who are caught up in turf wars and violent situations involving knives, alcohol or drugs.
	Government figures last week highlighted the UK's unacceptably high rates of teenage pregnancy. Abortion rates for young people under 15 have risen by 12 per cent, from 1,042 to 1,171, and there is a particularly disturbing rise among young girls under 14—from 135 to 163, a rise of 21 per cent. Last week we also had the report from the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group, which, along with the FPA, is making clarion calls for PSHE to be a statutory part of the curriculum so that young people can get easy access to appropriate contraception and sexual health services both in the community and in schools and colleges.
	In tackling the many different forms of irresponsible youthful behaviour we need to address the causes as well as the effects. The Government may well be looking for mechanisms immediately to reduce knife crime—which is currently top of the media statistics—but we should not lose sight of the longer-term solutions. The addition of PSHE as a statutory requirement would send a powerful message that the Government are fully committed to promoting children's well-being for their own long-term benefit as well as for the benefit of society. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: I am not convinced of such a provision being almost an examined subject in schools. I see it as much more of an entitlement. It is extremely important that children should be offered exposure to this area, and schools are generally pretty bad at it. Schools do not offer children much education on how to manage money, on how to get on with relationships of various sorts or on sexual health, other than that set out at the moment in some rather unimaginative structures. Anthony Seldon at Wellington College is, as ever, showing the way to make this area of education exciting, engaging and likely to have an impact on children. He is showing that it needs to be part of the whole school life. If we want these sorts of things to work, we need to look at the way the whole school is working. It should be within Ofsted's remit to look at the way a school works to bring up its children to become proper citizens.
	The sort of thing that matters to me in this area is the extraordinary rules that are now being promulgated in teacher training that teachers are not allowed to touch children: children who cut themselves in the playground are to be given a plaster to put on themselves; a teacher may not put the plaster on them. I have checked that with teacher training institutions: that is the advice currently being given to young teachers. Under no circumstances should they touch a child. To bring up children with the idea that that is the proper relationship between adults and children is deeply damaging to children, but that is not a curriculum subject and it is not set out in some way in the curriculum; it is the way that schools are managing themselves these days. That is the area where we have most effect on children in terms of many of the subjects that are covered by PHSE. It should be a whole school thing. It should be within the spirit of the school and the way that it conducts itself; otherwise, we start taking bits of learning into little discrete corners by themselves, turning them into things that are taught by rote in the classroom and risking the inevitable: children do not absorb them or take them on board. There are some kinds of learning that are not taken on board in that way; they are taken on board because it is the philosophy of life promoted by their peers and the school. It permeates the whole school environment.
	Although I support what the noble Baroness said about the aim of this amendment, we have to careful about how we achieve it and how other things we are doing in a school undermine these objectives by creating—to go back to the ban on hugging, which I find extraordinary—a class of children who think that physical involvement with each other is anathema and dangerous. Inculcating that sort of idea has far more lasting effects than anything ever said in PHSE class.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, but I wish we could leave everything to the leadership and ethos of each school. However, we have to accept that some schools are rather better at putting that form of leadership into practice. I support the intentions behind this amendment. When the Government introduced citizenship classes, it was quite brave because Governments had put them off again and again thinking that they would be used as political propaganda for the side that was in power. However, they were introduced and it was thought that citizenship would be a subject, instead of which it has been distributed into all other subjects being taught.
	The one thing that I and my noble friend Lord Northbourne, who I am sad to say is not in his place, were keen on was that parenting would be taught; not relationships with parents, because when teenagers are growing up there are tiffs with parents, but how to be a parent, what responsibilities parents have to take on board and what pleasures they can hope to receive from and impart to their children. Sadly, that has not happened. Perhaps somehow, as well as contraception and all the other more practical forms of encouraging young people not to have children before they are old and mature enough to make those kind of decisions, one could get discussion going about how we bring up the next generation, which will be crucial—even more than usual because there will be so few of them. They will need to be cherished by us all. I support the amendment.

Lord Elton: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, for moving the amendment and apologise to the Committee for unavoidably arriving only towards the closing remarks of her introduction. I therefore heard my noble friend Lord Lucas on the subject of hugging. He put his finger on an extraordinarily important feature of current society. Unfortunately, it is not just that children are being taught that hugging is not to be expected; adults outside the school are being taught that hugging is not to be done. These days, physical contact with a child can so easily result in a legal response. That is not the subject of the amendment, so I will not go on about it, except to say how very important I think that it is.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, mentioned cross-curricular subjects. I have a deep suspicion of any claim that a subject is taught as a cross-curricular subject, resulting—unless things have changed very much—from the day on which I embarked as a lecturer at a college of education. I was giving what I thought was rather a good and interesting series of lectures on the French Revolution. At the beginning of the series, I had the close—indeed, amused—attention of my students, which I found very gratifying. Suddenly, the following week, I found it impossible to reach them. They had something else on their mind. Eventually, I said, "Look, chaps, you are not with me. What are you worrying about?". They said, "We have our first practical teaching in school". I said, "It is not too difficult. You know your subject very well—a great deal better than the children do. All you have to do is keep order and keep them interested". They still looked worried, and it was not about their knowledge of their subject; it was about their ability to keep order. I said, "Surely you have been taught how to keep order in the classroom; you have had discussions about that with people in the education department, and so on". They said, "No, no". So I abandoned the French Revolution and gave what my students, I regret to say, thought were my most valuable three periods on how to keep order in the classroom.
	When my noble friend Lord Baker was Secretary of State for Education and Science, he appointed me to conduct an inquiry into discipline in schools. Naturally, we inquired of all the teacher training colleges whether they taught keeping good order or discipline. With no exception, they said "Oh yes, we do". I did not believe them, so we sent a questionnaire to every student taught in training colleges for the past, I forget exactly how many, years and discovered that only one of them actually taught it; all the others said, "Oh, it is a cross-curricular subject". It is very important that parenting is not treated in the same way.
	The question then arises whether it should be a subject at all. I return, I am afraid, to my constant theme in these debates: the aspect that touches on criminality. An awful lot of children are launched into society with no idea at all of how to relate to other people. They have been brought up by teenage parents who were themselves the children of teenage parents and who do not have the skill to transmit to the children. I have no magic solution to parenting, and I am not at all sure how it should be taught, but it will be vital to our society in the coming years because the phenomenon is increasing. Once that golden chain of knowledge from parent to child to parent to child is broken, no amount of good will or kindness will put it back. It must be organised consciously by the people who are responsible for bringing the child into society. My simple request to the Minister is therefore for an exposition of how his department, or departments collectively across government, propose to tackle this problem. If they do not tackle it, it will overtake us.

Baroness Walmsley: I think that the Minister thought he would be spared hearing me banging on about PSHE yet again. I support my noble friend's amendment and will make a few brief comments.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, did not like the idea of examining the subject. I tend to agree, but it may not be necessary to examine the subject as long as Ofsted inspects the quality. I also agree that PSHE should permeate the whole school and has an effect on the school ethos. We, too, believe that it should be an entitlement, which is why we tabled the amendments, which seek to ensure that every child receives PSHE and that it is high quality. Making this a statutory requirement would mean that teachers were properly trained to deliver some of these very sensitive subjects. Some of the CPD budget could be devolved to train people who already deliver PSHE in many schools but have not been properly trained to do so.
	I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that parenting skills should be an important part of PSHE. After all, the subject should be teaching for life, which is of more value than almost any academic subject, perhaps with the exception of English and maths. Teaching the mechanics of sex in science lessons is simply not enough. Young people should be taught about the complexities and difficulties of relationships. When they are taught about parenting, they may improve their relationship with their own parents because they will understand how difficult it is to be a parent if they study the subject in some depth.
	Knowledge is power, and power gives confidence. It is important that young people have the confidence to avoid any unwanted hugging. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Elton, have said about the difficulties of touching children these days, but there is such a thing as unwanted hugging. A confident child can say no to that and to unwanted advances from young men of their age if they are approached to have sex before they are ready. Perhaps only when they have looked into this matter with a trusted adult will they build up the knowledge of what might happen if they say yes to unprotected sex, and build up the confidence to stand up and say no when no is the right answer for them.

Lord Adonis: I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I can think of no subject taught in schools that is less relevant to maintaining discipline in the classroom than the French Revolution. He might have found by the time he moved on to Bonaparte that his material was more relevant.
	My notes on the various issues that could be raised in relation to the amendment include maintaining discipline in schools. They say that the 1989 Elton report on discipline in schools is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review of school discipline carried out in England. Having moved on from his French historical studies to examining the specific issue of maintaining discipline in schools, he is now an authority.

Lord Elton: I merely defend myself by saying that these people needed to complete the course in history to get their degrees, which is why I was teaching about France.

Lord Adonis: As an historian myself, I believe that you can turn the study of history to any eventuality and any other aspect of life. The noble Lord simply reinforces the point.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said in introducing her amendment, we debated PSHE at length during the passage of the Education and Inspections Act, at the instigation in part of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. The Government's policy on making PSHE statutory has not changed, but it is far from complacent. In the first place, much of PSHE is already statutory in schools. All schools must have a sex education policy, which is supported by statutory guidance issued by my department on the content and teaching of sex and relationships education. This education is required in law to include education about HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections. In addition, statutory content in the science curriculum supports teaching about sex and drugs, healthy eating and the importance of exercise. As we discussed earlier today, schools are also required to provide careers education at key stages 3 and 4, and work-related learning must be provided at key stage 4.
	Secondly, the department's priority has been to improve PSHE teaching and learning by providing clear guidance, supporting teachers in continuing their professional development, and identifying and spreading good practice. The national PSHE continuing professional development programme is now accredited and attracts nearly 2,000 participants each year, with substantial government funding to make this possible. The status of PSHE has also been raised through measures such as including it as a requirement for achieving healthy schools status, and we are on track to reach our target of 75 per cent of schools achieving that status by 2009.
	Guidance on healthy school status is made available to all schools, and all its opening sections relate to PSHE. It states that a healthy school:
	"Uses the PSHE framework to deliver a planned programme of PSHE ... Monitors and evaluates PSHE provision to ensure the quality of teaching and learning ... Assesses children/young people's progress and achievement in line with QCA guidance",
	and:
	"Has a named member of staff responsible for PSHE provision with status, training and appropriate Senior Management support within the school".
	A healthy school:
	"Involves professionals from appropriate external agencies to create specialist teams to support PSHE delivery and to improve skills and knowledge, such as a school nurse, sexual health outreach workers and drug education advisers".
	We have been providing a good deal of support for PSHE. Indeed, I launched the new PSHE Subject Association two years ago to help to promote PSHE in schools, and I am glad to say that it now has more than 900 members and is doing excellent work.
	The position is improving, and this progress has been reflected in recent Ofsted reports. Ofsted reported in March 2007 that in primary schools, teaching and learning was judged to be at least adequate in nearly all PSHE lessons and good in three-quarters of them. In secondary schools, the quality of teaching and learning has shown a steady improvement, with 66 per cent of lessons in key stage 3 and 75 per cent of lessons in key stage 4 judged as good.
	However, we continue to keep the position of PSHE under review. The review of the primary curriculum, which is currently being led by Sir Jim Rose, has a specific remit to consider how to develop an integrated framework for the personal skills that all pupils should develop through their schooling. Good PSHE is essential to this process. There are also ongoing reviews of drugs education and sex and relationships education. We will consider all three reviews when they report and the future position of PSHE in the curriculum in the light of them. Although I fear that I cannot go further than the Government's existing policy on PSHE, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, will be reassured by that and by the fact that we are taking forward many of the component parts of PSHE that she highlighted.

Lord Elton: I take on board everything that the noble Lord has said. I remain anxious about the teaching of parenting, which is what tempted me to put my name to these amendments. I am not convinced that the school is necessarily the best place to do it. I think that when we come to the later stages of the Bill, we will find that the school can require a child to attend elsewhere than school to receive his or her education. It may be that that duty should fall to a local authority or some other body. I do not pretend to have an answer, but an answer is very much needed. I hope that we may return to this issue at a later stage when we have all thought about it more.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: I was not quite quick enough on my maths when the Minister talked about the assessment of good and adequate teaching and how much was neither good nor adequate. Does the Minister know how many teachers teach PSHE without a specific qualification or training? One of our concerns was to raise the professionalism of the subject as a whole.

Lord Adonis: I do not know the figure, but it was precisely to see that more are trained that we introduced the certificate programme, which, as I say, is paid for by the Government.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. There is a great deal of interest in this subject. We may not have complete agreement on where the solution lies, but there seems to be agreement that it is a very important aspect of the school curriculum for these subjects to be taught professionally, thus enabling young people to become more responsible and more fulfilled citizens as a result of their schooling. It is encouraging to hear what the Minister has said in his reply about the various moves that are being taken forward. I shall read his comments carefully. I am disappointed that he has not gone that extra step to move to this complete proposal and we may wish to return to it at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 199 not moved.]
	Clause 67 [Apprenticeships: functions of Learning and Skills Council for England]:

Baroness Verma: moved Amendment No. 200:
	Clause 67, page 39, line 27, leave out "contract of employment or a"

Baroness Verma: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 201 and 202. The amendments relate to Clause 67, which amends Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, to ensure that the Learning and Skills Council is under a duty to provide proper facilities for apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds. The intention of the amendment is to return to traditional employer-based apprenticeships, rather than apprenticeships based with an independent training provider.
	As an employer I can speak with personal experience. It is a very straightforward concept. Employer-provided training is the best method of training people for employment. To me that seems very plain. If we are to ensure the flexible and dynamic training provision that is necessary in an ever more advanced economy, we must put in place the most effective method. I believe that employers must lead the apprenticeship system if we are to raise the skills level. They are best placed to know what skills and training an apprentice will need.
	I have had a meeting with Colin Willman of the Federation of Small Businesses. He told me that most of the members of his organisation want to see traditional apprenticeships return. The federation is not convinced that the training envisaged in the Bill will be appropriate to the jobs that it has to offer. It is right to call for a reassurance in the Bill. Currently, there is a shortage of apprenticeship places owing to a lack of employer engagement.
	There were only 239,000 apprenticeships in training in 2006-07 and the numbers appear to be falling. Last summer, the Economic Affairs Committee of this House reported that most of the increase in apprenticeships over the years is the result of converting government-supported programmes of work-based learning into apprenticeships. All that new training has been below level 3. Lower-level training has increased at the expense of higher-level training. Of those 239,000 apprenticeships, only 97,000 are at level 3. To drive up standards of apprenticeship, we should look towards the providers out there; that is, employers who are waiting and willing to take on young people to train them to mutual benefit, as long as it is not overly complex and a financial constraint. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Those on these Benches have a great deal of sympathy for the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. It is extremely important that young people are able to get into apprenticeships. There is no doubt whatever that the provision of work-based learning, as distinct from programme apprenticeships, is considerably better.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I am delighted to speak to this amendment. Given the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, we have a lot in common on this issue. In particular, we had the publication of the draft apprenticeship Bill last week, around which there will be a great deal of debate and discussion, to which I look forward. I have a long speaking note on this. However, I fully appreciate the points made by the noble Baroness. It is essential that apprenticeships are real and employer-led. I am advised that the fall in the numbers to which the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, referred at level 3 is a result of an increased emphasis on level 2, which is employer-led. In order to achieve the Leitch aspiration of 400,000 apprenticeships by 2020, we envisage a significant increase not only in level 2, but also in higher level apprenticeships.
	We have very ambitious plans for apprenticeships. The draft Bill goes into some detail, but the Committee needs to recognise that Clause 67 puts down a very important marker; namely, that these proper employer-led apprenticeships, within an apprenticeship framework with a completion certificate, are legitimate training activities covered by this important Bill. That is why this clause is in the Bill. I do not want to detract from a very important and significant debate, and I welcome the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. I understand that there is a huge commitment to promoting really strong demand-led and employer-led apprenticeships for young people. I believe that the Government are putting in, with the new national apprenticeship service, the matching service, significant investment in making the aspiration that Leitch very clearly articulated a reality. As we have said on many occasions, it is about working with employers, which is a tough call that we have to make happen.

Baroness Verma: I thank the Minister for her thoughtful response. I would have listened with interest to her notes. However, she is right that the draft apprenticeship Bill will discuss apprenticeships much more in depth. I look forward to that discussion. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 not moved.]
	Clause 67 agreed to.
	Clause 68 [Provision of transport etc for persons of sixth form age: duty to consider journey times]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 203:
	Clause 68, page 40, line 5, after "statements)" insert —
	"(a) "

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In speaking to Amendment No. 203, I shall support Amendment No. 207A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Low, to which I have added my name. Amendment No. 203 proposes a revised duty for each local authority relating to home-to-education transfer for 16 to 18 year-olds. There are 1.9 million 16 to 18 year-olds in England, 76 per cent of whom participate in education or training, and colleges of further education account for the largest share of educating these young people with 727,000 attending FE colleges as compared with 447,000 attending school. Research shows that young people are often frustrated by the limitations of public transport and that the demand to learn to drive is high. Poor access to public transport in rural areas is a particular impetus to learn to drive. More than 180,000 out of a cohort of 650,000 teenagers obtain a driving licence at 17, which means that something like 25 per cent of all 17 year-olds seek to obtain a driving licence.
	The journey to school or college might be one of several made during the day, but is worthy of attention for several reasons. An estimated 10 million journeys to educational establishments are made each week by 16 to 18 year-olds. The journeys are made during the day, often at peak times, which adds to congestion if undertaken by car. Young people and their passengers account for a disproportionate number of the 3,500 road deaths each year. These journeys often make a public transport option viable, with sufficient numbers travelling to the same destination at the same time. Limited funds and limited access to cars among this age group makes public transport a reasonable choice, and the habits developed as young adults often stay with people for the rest of their lives. If young people get used to travelling by bus or by train, they are not afraid of doing so later. Anything we can do to encourage the use of public transport at this stage, the better.
	I believe that the Government are currently consulting on a long-term strategy towards a sustainable transport system that supports economic growth in a low-carbon world. The strategy proposes five tests that should be applied to judge transport projects: improving economic competitiveness; addressing climate change; protecting safety, security and health; improving the quality of life; and promoting greater equality of opportunity. More effective home-to-education transport for 16 to 19 year-olds passes all those tests at relatively limited cost.
	Local education authorities have a statutory responsibility for home-to-education transport for the 16 to 18 age group. Under the 1996 Act as amended by the 2002 Act, local authorities should have regard to the,
	"need to secure that people in their area have reasonable opportunities to choose between different establishments at which education or training is provided".
	The local education authority is required to take into account income, cost, distance travelled from home to school and the needs of those who could not easily attend a particular institution if no such arrangements were made. The Education Act 2002 strengthened those duties by requiring local authorities to publish transport plans, and in 2006 the responsibility for managing these statements passed from the Department for Education and Skills to the Learning and Skills Council. An example of good practice is illustrated by what has happened in Avon and Somerset, where councils and transport operators have co-operated to provide a £420 youth rover card, an annual season ticket for young people. This has increased the numbers using public transport and has also contributed to rising participation in education and training. In London, all those aged under 18 get free travel under the subsidy introduced by Transport for London.
	It is important that the Government should pursue the policy of improving the provision of home-to-education transport in the interests of making wider choices available to those on low incomes. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 extended local authority powers to provide transport for school-age children in the interests of encouraging choice and sustainability. However, that provision is insufficient for the following reasons. First, some local authorities are not fulfilling their statutory duty to produce appropriate transport plans. For example, some authorities disregard the issue of choice and suitability by simply assuming that the closest place of study is the right one, regardless of the courses available. Secondly, education institutions have to provide increasing subsidies to fill the gaps in existing public and local authority supported provision. A survey undertaken by the Association of Colleges in 2006 showed that 87 per cent of colleges are subsidising transport at an average cost for each college of over £300,000. Thirdly, the Education and Skills Bill will require councils to consider travel time as well as distance in meeting their responsibilities for 16 to 18 transport provision.
	The aim of these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 203, is to propose a revised duty for each local authority relating to home-to-school transport for 16 to 18 year-olds. The duty presently relates to cost, distance travelled, travel time and the needs of those who are unable to access provision. The duty should take greater account of the ability of young people to pay.
	I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 207A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low. We strongly support this proposal, and this issue is one that the late Baroness Darcy de Knayth and I pursued on one or two occasions. It is vital that those with disabilities who cannot access public transport are provided with proper transport to and from their place of education. It is an important aspect of our equality legislation, and I hope that the Minister will look favourably on it. I beg to move.

Baroness Verma: I shall to speak to the amendments in my name in this group, which have been tabled because I have concerns about whether the Government have adequately thought through the new challenges that students and local authorities alike will face with transport, and to ensure that sufficient funding will be in place to cope. More routes of transport will be needed as new students travel to college, to training placements, and in and out of work. They may need to travel to several different sites to fulfil their obligations. The nature of the new education dispensation means that young people will not necessarily be confined to a single campus.
	There may be issues of cross-local authority area transport. Young people are going to take up places on courses convenient to them and relevant to their needs which may not necessarily fall neatly within local government boundaries. I should like a reassurance from the Minister that the Government have considered how they are going to transport the increased numbers of students and apprentices to where they need to be. It would be prudent for the Secretary of State to commission a review into both the effectiveness of transport plans and how much they are likely to cost before passing on the costs to what are already hard-pressed local authorities that simply may not have the necessary mechanisms, tools or funds to cope with the Government's demands.
	I also offer my support to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, which raises the problems faced by disabled learners. I support fully the aim that no one should be excluded from the Bill because of disability, and I hope that the Minister will consider this issue, ideally as part of the review proposed in my amendments.

Lord Low of Dalston: I shall speak to Amendment No. 207A, which has already been referred to by the noble Baronesses. This amendment would place on local education authorities a duty to provide transport for disabled learners up to the age of 25 who are pursuing a course of education or training at a further education institution but who, on account of their disability, cannot use public transport or access private transport to attend the course.
	The failure to provide transport to disabled students aged over 19 who remain in further adult and continuing education and work-based learning until 25 has been a problem for many years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, alluded to. A local LSC can agree to continue to fund a disabled person's education but the local authority is under no obligation to provide transport. This Bill, with its changes to post-16 education, gives us an opportunity to remove this defect.
	I have recently become president of SKILL, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities, in succession to the late Lady Darcy de Knayth, and I pay tribute to her and to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for their efforts on this question over the years. The Committee will understand, therefore, that this gives me not only an interest to declare but a sense of responsibility in this matter. SKILL has sought legislation on this issue for some considerable time. It has tabled amendments, had meetings and considerable correspondence with Ministers, and had hoped that the Government might have resolved this issue by now having been given a number of assurances to that effect. But, as no amendment from the department has been forthcoming, it is necessary for me to ask your Lordships to make an amendment in this House. This is, therefore, not so much a probing as a prodding amendment.
	There is currently a duty on local authorities to provide transport for learners with learning difficulties and disabilities in education who have not yet reached the education leaving age. However, many disabled people may require longer to complete their education and their transition to adult education and services. In recognition of this, legislation also exists that puts a duty on the LSC to provide educational opportunities for these learners up to the age of 25, and the Government give a fee waiver for those pursuing their first level 2 and level 3 qualification up to that age. However, there is a major gap in provision in that there is a power but no duty to provide transport for those learners between the ages of 19 and 25 who remain in education for reasons relating to their disability and may require transport to get to their place of education.
	The amendment seeks to address this lacuna in the legislation. Guidance for local education authorities on the provision of transport states that provision should also be made for students with learning difficulties and disabilities up to at least the age of 21, although local authorities should seriously consider extending this to 25, yet there is continuing evidence from voluntary sector organisations and the LSC's review, Through Inclusion to Excellence, that current arrangements, responsibilities and DCSF guidance on transport for learners with learning difficulties and disabilities post-16—but particularly between the ages of 19 and 25—are not sufficient. For example, the Black Country Connexions Partnership reports that three out of the four LEAs in its area will not fund the transport costs of disabled students beyond the age of 19, and evidence from SKILL suggests that this is not unusual. This is affecting progression into employment for these learners and therefore impacts upon skills targets proposed by Leitch and welfare-to-work targets proposed by Freud.
	Resolving these issues would allow more disabled young people to take advantage of free further education up to 25. This provision will not be needed by all learners with learning difficulties and disabilities but it must be recognised that a few disabled people will never be able to access mainstream public transport because of their impairments, so those who have transport specified in their transition plans should be entitled to free transport.
	Previously it would have been more difficult to legislate for a duty to provide transport for this group of learners as the transport powers lay with the local authority while provision of education lay with the LSC. However, the Bill lays the foundation for transferring to local authorities the responsibility for providing education to learners aged over 16, which provides an opportunity to clarify transport provision for these learners too. LEAs already have a duty to consider transport for all learners as part of the 14 to 19 agenda and have to consider a partnership approach in relation to matters such as urban, rural and cross-border transport. Extending the duty up to age 25 for disabled learners should not therefore impose too great an additional burden on planning and logistics but it will have a huge impact on learners' access.
	As I have said, not all learners with learning difficulties and disabilities will require transport provision to and from their place of education. One approach which has been suggested for reducing students' reliance on publicly funded transport is travel training. It will not remove the need to provide transport altogether, but it could increase the number of learners who can travel independently and has been shown to lead to considerable savings in unemployment benefit as well as the cost of providing statutory transport. The information available is too limited for a full cost-benefit analysis but I understand that the Department for Transport has recently undertaken some analysis of travel training schemes. Can the Minister confirm that they do indeed represent a useful approach which could reduce the need for students to rely on publicly funded transport and make its provision for those who do need it all the more viable?
	The amendment calls for a duty to be laid on local authorities to provide transport free of charge for those identified as disabled in education and needing transport up to at least the age of 25. I have had a helpful meeting with the Bill team and a range of officials in the responsible department and it appears that there is uncertainty about the numbers involved. But spread between more than 100 local authorities, even on the highest estimates which have so far been put forward, the numbers should not be great—not more than 200 or 300 students per authority. There has been more than enough time to resolve these uncertainties while all the talks have been going on. What is needed now to concentrate minds is a duty laid on the responsible authorities.
	It should not be the case that a young disabled person has an identified need for learning and that funding has been identified to provide this learning, yet the young person cannot take this opportunity for lack of transport. The amendment has wide support among organisations working in the field of provision for disabled young people and I commend it to the Committee.

Lord Lucas: Every year I have the pleasure of receiving some work shadow students from Greenhead College in Huddersfield. We were having a discussion on school transport and they told me that the problem they face, which may well be illustrative of the problem many people will face when 16-to-18 education becomes compulsory—particularly when children have to get to educational and vocational opportunities which may be some distance from them—is that although transport arrangements are well organised within a particular district, once you try to travel between districts you get into considerable difficulties. In somewhere quite populous such as the outskirts of Manchester, where the districts are tightly drawn, if you are the wrong side of the boundary you find yourself unable to get free travel to Greenhead, whereas if you are within the right transport district, you do. This practice has grown up as arrangements have been made locally between local authorities and transport providers, and the boundaries are quite strict. Why should the outskirts of Manchester provide transport to Huddersfield when it is out of area, as it were?
	I think this has come about because the entitlement is phrased not as a right of the student to have transport to the proper provision but as a right of the ability of the authorities to co-operate in any way they choose to provide transport. Although for sixth-form students it is only a reduction in price rather than free, it is none the less important to children of that age and to their ability to take advantage of the educational opportunity they find best. We need to find some way of focusing the entitlement on the student, rather than for it to be subject to convenience and arrangements that have not been put in place between local authorities.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I spoke to this amendment earlier. I am in favour of it. I will not take up the Committee's time by going over the same points, but I hope it will not be defeated.

Lord Adonis: With regard to Amendments Nos. 205, 206 and 207 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, I entirely agree that we need to look at the transport needs associated with the introduction of the new diplomas and delivery of the 2013 entitlement. That is why we commissioned independent research from York Consulting into the transport needs stemming from the introduction of the 14-to-19 reforms, including diplomas, which was published on 30 June, and I placed a copy in the Library of the House. The report comes in at 126 pages, but I am happy to circulate it to Members of the Committee so they can have a chance to read it prior to Report.
	The research found that local authorities do not see transport as a significant problem in the short to medium term. If I read out the conclusion for the noble Baroness, she may not even need to read all 126 pages. Paragraph 52 states:
	"In the short to medium term, 14-19 transport issues associated with curriculum-generated additional travel do not appear to have as high a profile as might have been expected or indeed predicted by our preliminary analysis. The majority of areas appear to be coping at present and do not expect numbers of travelling learners to increase substantially during the early period of Diploma rollout".
	However, the York Consulting reports also highlighted some longer-term issues that we are committed to working with local authorities to address. In particular, the report says in paragraphs 30 and 31:
	"Future funding issues are most likely to arise in relation to peripheral inter-site transfer which, at present, in most areas is funded by individual learning centres. The scale of future costs is generally not known ...
	"As the scale of additional journeys increase, there is a need to adopt a more collaborative approach which addresses occupancy levels, shared costs, circular trips, joint timetabling, centre location etc. and ensures that only the most optimal solutions are implemented. For example, minibus leasing and contract negotiation of carrier contracts has, where introduced, demonstrated significant cost savings over learning centre owner operation of buses".
	There is a good deal more on that in the report. We will work with a sample of local authorities to model the transport needed to deliver the 2013 entitlement, and we will publish the results of that work in the summer of 2009. We will also explore the potential of non-transport solutions, such as common timetabling and e-learning, in carrying out that work.
	Alongside that research we have published a report focused on solutions already being employed by rural areas, where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, transport issues feature prominently. We have committed £23 million to support rural areas in developing local solutions, and we will share widely the good practice that they develop.
	With regard to Amendments Nos. 203 and 204 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, we share her concern that affordable transport should be available to all young people to access education and training. Local authorities already have a duty to draw up a transport policy statement relating to young people of sixth-form age travelling to school or college. That statement must set out the provision of transport they consider necessary to facilitate the attendance of people of sixth-form age in education. There is already a requirement for local authorities to take cost into account in preparing their transport policy statements, alongside a range of other factors; for example, the distance from home to school or college and the need to ensure choice of education provision. Local authorities must also consider the needs of students who would not be able to attend a particular education or training establishment without help or support.
	I turn to Amendment No. 207A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, which would require local authorities to make such arrangements for the provision of transport and otherwise as they consider necessary, or as the Secretary of State may direct, to facilitate the attendance of learners up to the age of 25 with disabilities in further education. I know that there are examples of good work by local authorities in supporting this important group of young people to access provision. In particular, a limited evaluation carried out by the Department for Transport of travel training schemes, which is a scheme where young people with learning difficulties are supported to use public or other forms of transport, shows potentially significant benefits. It shows that travel training can provide new skills and confidence to the young people, allowing them to access education independently as well as being able to travel to other locations and so play a full role in the community. In addition, because they enable learners to travel independently, such schemes have been shown to provide significant cost savings that have enabled the funding available to be targeted more effectively at providing specialised transport to those learners who need it most.
	However, while there is some good practice in this area, I agree with the noble Lord that it is patchy and that more needs to be done to ensure that no young person is prevented from participating due to lack of appropriate support. That is why we have committed to working with Skill over the summer to look further into the scale of this issue, the number and needs of the learners affected and how the latter can best be met. That work will include a further assessment of travel training as well as consideration of other ways to mainstream good practice and to bring all areas up to the standards of the best. From our findings we will develop a firm strategy including dates for implementation, and I am happy to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Low, the outcome of that work prior to Report. I hope that on that basis he will be satisfied that we intend to take serious, concrete action in this area, and will not feel it necessary to press his amendment today.

Baroness Verma: I thank the Minister for his response to my amendments. Along with all Members of the Committee, I look forward to reading the report. Will he just confirm—I may have misheard—that he believes that learner centres will pay towards the cost of transport in partnership with other partners, and would those other partners include employers and students themselves? I am not sure if I heard it right.

Lord Adonis: These decisions need to be taken case by case at the local level. I did not say that the other partners the noble Baroness mentioned should be involved as a matter of course; it is much more likely that the local authority will be involved directly.

Baroness Verma: I thank the Minister. I will read with interest what the report has to say before I comment further.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thought perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Low, might like to respond before I withdraw my amendment.

Lord Low of Dalston: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I am still comparatively inexperienced in this place, and once when I sought to withdraw an amendment that was grouped I was told that that was not the correct procedure, so I was waiting for my amendment to fall with the rest. However, I am happy to take my cue from the noble Baroness.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his careful response. I am sure that Skill will be more than anxious to participate with the discussions and the work of which he has spoken over the summer. I look forward to hearing from him about the outcome of that work before we return to these issues on Report. On that basis, I am more than happy not to press the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I shall respond on Amendment No. 203 and make one or two remarks about Amendment No. 207A. I am delighted that the Minister is going to do something about this. About 18 months ago, the late Lady Darcy de Knayth and I met the Minister, Mr Rammell. We received promises that action would be taken, but nothing much has emerged from that. I hope that the Minister will pursue this and ensure that we succeed in getting something done.
	With regard to Amendments Nos. 203 and 204, I hear what the Minister said, although to some extent he told me what I told him: local authorities should be making plans and talking this into account. It is clear, as I said, that some local authorities are not fulfilling their statutory duties to produce the appropriate transport plans. It is awkward for them; it costs money and we know that they do not like spending money on these things. Money is very tight for local authorities, but nevertheless it is necessary. A lot of young people in the 16 to 18 year-old age group are seeking education and training and it is necessary that they are able to pursue the choice of training that they want.
	We will almost certainly bring the amendment back on Report because we need to consider it further. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 204 to 207 not moved.]
	Clause 68 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 207A not moved.]
	Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
	Clause 71 [Learning aims for persons aged 19 and over]:

Baroness Verma: moved Amendment No. 208:
	Clause 71, page 41, line 36, after "their" insert "aspirations and"

Baroness Verma: I have tabled Amendments Nos. 208 and 209 with the intention of upholding and furthering the spirit of aspiration which is the aim of the Bill. Clause 71 amends the Learning and Skills Act 2000 so that the Learning and Skills Council must secure the provision of facilities for relevant education and training for adults which is suitable to their requirements. My amendment would change the wording to "aspirations and requirements". We do not want the provision of facilities to be limited to the barest minimum. Mere requirements are relatively easy to meet. However, I, along with, I am sure, all noble Lords, would like people to be able to fulfil whatever aspirations they have and not be obliged to undertake whatever happens to be available simply because it is there and they have no other option. It is individuals who best know what route they wish to follow, and we should use the opportunity afforded by the Bill to provide as great a selection of options as possible.
	It is clear that the Bill will not stand or fall on the basis of these amendments, but I am tempted to insert a more generous form of wording. I would like to send a message that we are wholeheartedly about providing education and training, and the provision for those over 19 should not be a grudging afterthought. I beg to move.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: If only parliamentary draftsmen could be encouraged to listen to the noble Baroness's plea for a more generous form of wording, it would keep us all much happier. I need to resist the amendments, but I hope to convince the noble Baroness that the aspiration to which she refers is fully catered for not only in the Bill but administratively.
	I have a lot of sympathy with the amendments. Naturally, the debate so far has focused on improving the skills of young people, which is crucial for the country's future economic prosperity and the life chances for generations of the most vulnerable. I am, however, pleased to be able to turn to the part of the Bill concerned with meeting the challenge we face in building the skills base of the nation's existing workforce.
	We want to help as many adults as possible to improve their skills and achieve their aspirations, whatever they may be. Some adults may aspire to being able to read a novel or to helping their children with their maths homework. Others may wish to gain skills for employment or to further their career prospects.
	As I said at Second Reading, much progress has been made in the arena of adult education and training. Both quality and quantity have improved: the success rate on courses in FE colleges reached 77 per cent in 2005-06, up from 59 per cent in 2000-01; and 1.34 million adults have upskilled to level 2 since the end of 2002. I therefore believe that we are making progress.
	The reforms to the post-19 learning and skills system are now focused on building on the successes to date to create a system that is more responsive to learner and employer demand and provides everyone with the platform of skills needed to succeed in life and work. The new duties in Clause 71 are a key part of our drive for world-class skills in 2020, which was encapsulated in the Government's response to the report of my noble friend Lord Leitch on the UK's skills needs.
	Since the Learning and Skills Act 2000 was passed, the Learning and Skills Council has been able to fund a range of provision for adults at varying funding rates. Until now, however, there has not been a legal duty on the LSC to secure free tuition for adults. This is one of the things that the clause provides. It will also give individuals the right to expect education and training in skills at basic and intermediate levels which they will need to achieve their aspirations, or at least to take the first crucial steps towards achieving them.
	To help learners achieve their aspirations, we need to create a system that responds to learners' individual requirements. I think that that is exactly the point that the noble Baroness is making. Ensuring that people have the opportunity to obtain a wide range of skills at basic and intermediate levels is the most effective way to improve the life chances of those with fewer skills and to support social justice.
	To this end we are placing a new duty on the Learning and Skills Council to secure the provision of proper, rather than reasonable, facilities for certain specified adult qualifications. To fulfil this duty, the LSC must secure the provision of facilities for education and training of a quantity sufficient and quality adequate to meet the reasonable needs of individuals, and which is suitable for their requirements. For specified courses, this will bring the duties on the LSC in relation to adults into line with those for young people. This is a very important step forward.
	In practice, that means that adults can expect free and appropriate provision of basic skills qualifications at level 1 literacy and entry level 3 numeracy, their first full-time level 2 qualification. In addition, for 19 to 25 year-olds, there will be free tuition for their first full level 3 qualification. Because learner choice is clearly paramount in meeting the reasonable needs of adults, the legislation will require the LSC, in exercising its duty, to increase opportunities for learners to exercise choice and to encourage a wider range of education and training opportunities, as set out in new subsections 5(d) and (e) of new Section 4A to be inserted into the Learning and Skills Act 2000. That should offer the noble Baroness some reassurance. The provision includes ensuring the provision of part-time courses and a close fit with the needs of the local, regional and national job market. Effective information, advice and guidance from the Adult Advancement and Careers Service will support learners in identifying the right courses for them and, if necessary, finding a range of suitable alternatives to meet their needs and aspirations.
	Despite my general support for the intention behind the amendment, I do not think that it is appropriate at this stage. The LSC is a high-level strategic funding body which does not have the day-to-day contact with individuals that would be needed to assess their needs according to their future goals or aspirations. I would suggest that the Adult Advancement and Careers Service, the learndirect advice line and learning providers are best placed to engage directly with learners to help them access the courses best suited to them, as I know that the noble Baroness is keen to see. The clauses are carefully balanced to ensure that the duties on the LSC enable it to operate in practice, while at the same time enabling learners' needs to be met. That is why it uses the language of "requirements". I assure the noble Baroness that I believe that the provisions in Clause 71 provide the essential building blocks that learners need in meeting their aspirations.
	On Amendment No. 209, the new duty on the LSC to secure the provision of proper facilities for relevant education or training for adult learners requires that those facilities are, as I said, "sufficient" in quantity and "adequate" in quality to meet the reasonable needs of individuals. As I said, our further education system is good and getting better. Over three-quarters of students in learning go on to achieve their qualification and by 2011, with the assistance of these new adult skills provisions, we hope to increase this success rate to over 80 per cent.
	I hope that I have offered the noble Baroness the reassurance that she rightly seeks and that she will be able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: I ask the Minister for clarification of what she said, to which I tried to listen very carefully. The language of requirements is neutral; it can be either the requirement of the recipient or the requirement of the person who identifies whatever are—and I quote another phrase that the Minister mentioned—reasonable needs. We have words such as "reasonable needs" and "aspirations", the latter of which the Minister used herself many times although she is rejecting it in the amendment, and then "requirements". I am not quite clear who is to define those requirements. Will the LSC be able to take into account the aspirations of the adult or will the needs of the local area for employment have to balance them? Perhaps I am being unnecessarily stupid in not understanding what the Minister said, but I would be grateful for some clarification. "Requirements" is a neutral word; it does not tell us who is going to define these requirements—the individual or the LSC.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I do not want to be flippant but while I was reading the speaking note I was thinking about Harry Potter and the room of requirements. I do not know whether noble Lords have read the book, but the room can supply you with whatever your requirements might be. It is a very interesting concept.
	My interpretation is that the LSC must create a balance between all the duties placed on it. On requirements, it is clear that we are providing an entitlement to new additional skills level training, and that the LSC must make provision that takes into account the local employment market and the skills gap in the population. Those are the high-level duties on the LSC. The argument that I am trying to make—and whether I am making it very successfully is another question—is that, for an individual's aspiration, there will be a toolkit of funding provision and courses available. There will be the Adult Advancement and Careers Service, which will support any individuals who could benefit from a level 3 numeracy booster or a level 2 training provision. The Adult Advancement and Careers Service would talk in detail to adults and discuss with them what their aspirations might be, then help them to identify what courses are available. Some of those courses will be fully funded by the LSC and some may not be—but that adult advancement service will help individuals to identify a tailored menu of options for that adult learner.
	I am happy to write to the noble Baroness in fuller terms, if that would help, but that is what we are trying to explain here and that is why we are amending the 2000 Act to make it more explicit—in legalese terms.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, although I am now confused at a somewhat higher level that I was before.

Lord Elton: I hope that we may share that letter. The Minister's reply to my noble friend's very humble amendment was quite surprising. We have three or four paragraphs on how excellent the present system is and what it has delivered, then we had many more on how much is going to be delivered under the new system, but there was nothing much addressing the question of aspirations as distinct from requirements. We have now had requirements defined, but I have not heard a reason why aspirations should not be included, except for the suggestion that the council will be too exalted to assess them—although it can apparently assess requirements.
	At this point I am tempted to reflect that every Bill team, backed and encouraged by every parliamentary draftsman, starts from the position that the Bill is perfect and must be defended and only slowly yields to a suggestion that it could be in any way improved. Parliamentary draftsmen can, on occasion, be persuaded to revisit an issue; this may not be such an issue—but until we know how the Minister interprets "aspirations", as compared with how my noble friend interprets the word, it is really very difficult to see whether we should ask the Minister to do so or not.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I shall attempt to respond. The noble Lord has a great deal of wisdom in his remarks. I had a wonderful sentence which I could not bring myself to read out—and I shall not do so now—which said that adequate could be defined as sufficient and, of course, sufficient as adequate. I am not sure that that helps to take us forward.
	The Learning and Skills Council is operating at a population level and the Adult Advancement and Careers Service is operating at a one-to-one individual level. The argument that we are making is that aspirations are defined at an individual level and requirements less so. I am very happy to write to noble Lords and we can have this discussion again, if the noble Baroness will be kind enough to withdraw her amendment and give me another chance. I appreciate that these are very important definitions that need to be clear, so I am not belittling her amendment in any way.
	I have just been handed a further note that says that this—whatever "this" is—reflects the current duty on the Learning and Skills Council in relation to young people in the Learning and Skills Act 2000. That refers to another point that I have not made clear, about consistency with the legislation applying to young people. The adult provisions here are consistent with what already exists for young people. We are keen not to create an inconsistency.
	I have another note saying that aspirations are subjective, while requirements are measured against national priorities—literacy and numeracy, level 2 and level 3.

Lord Elton: That last message was extraordinarily illuminating and could take us a long way as we study it between now and Recess.

Baroness Verma: I thank the Minister for her generous response. I do not think that those last two notes helped her very much. However, I know that she is minded to understand my desire to ensure that adults are able to reach their aspirations and requirements as well as ensuring a much sought-after skilled adult workforce. I thank my noble friends for their contributions, which opened the discussion further. I am disappointed, however, that I could not persuade the Minister to be more generous in responding to my amendments but, as I said, the Bill will not stand or fall on the basis of those amendments. I hope that I will continue to highlight our need to ensure that individual learners are given every opportunity and choice to reach and acquire those needed skills. I will read very carefully the Minister's well chosen comments.
	On Amendment No. 209, when I heard the Minister refer to "sufficient" and "adequate", I thought what grey words they were. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 209A:
	Clause 71, page 42, line 18, at beginning insert "co-operate where appropriate with local education authorities and"

Baroness Walmsley: This is an unassuming little amendment. The need for it in the Bill is so clear that I have a faint hope that the Minister will accept it. Clause 71 specifies many duties that we very much welcome, although some of us feel that it does not go far enough, as the Committee will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, in the next two groups. The Learning and Skills Council must take into account a number of issues. New Section 4A(5)(d) states that it must,
	"act with a view to encouraging diversity of education and training available to individuals".
	FE colleges will supply the majority of the post-19 market, and there will of course need to be close co-operation between them, the 14-to-19 partnerships, local authorities and the Learning and Skills Council to ensure effective planning and commissioning and that there is enough capacity throughout pre- and post-19 provision.
	We know that next year the duties of the Learning and Skills Council will be devolved elsewhere. However, for the moment, it is the organisation with responsibility for post-19. It is blindingly obvious that if the LSC and its successors are to have regard, as it says in new paragraph (d), to,
	"act with a view to encouraging diversity of education and training available to individuals",
	it will need to co-operate where appropriate with the local authority.
	That is the unassuming little amendment that we have added to the new section in Clause 71. I look forward to hearing the Minister accept it or, if not, justifying not accepting it. I beg to move.

Baroness Verma: We have some sympathy with the amendment. It would have the Learning and Skills Council co-operate with local education authorities when encouraging the diversity and training available to individuals. As local education authorities are likely to be the bodies that facilitate much of the training and education opportunities, it seems a sensible move to require them to be involved with the LSC's planning and decision-making processes.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I agree with the noble Baroness who moved the amendment that it seems self-explanatory, and I hope very much that the Minister will accept it.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I have a sense of déjà vu, because a year ago we debated the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and talked about this question of local area agreements and co-operation with different bodies. I am advised that it is appropriate to resist the amendment because it is not necessary, not because we do not agree with it.
	It is of course important that the LSC co-operates with local education authorities. The LSC already engages with local authorities in a range of contexts. Local authorities prepare local area agreements that set out the deal between central and local government and their partners to improve services and the quality of life for local people. The Learning and Skills Council is a key partner authority and plays a central role in ensuring that local area agreements can help to deliver the right level of skills in the right priority areas. Ninety per cent of local area agreements include a skills target. The best model for securing the achievement of the skills target is through the creation of a local coalition of partners who together bring a wide understanding of the community—such as future employment trends and the skills and qualifications that local people will need to secure those jobs.
	Further to strengthen those arrangements, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 introduced a new duty on responsible local authorities and partner bodies to co-operate in agreeing local improvement targets in local area agreements. In addition, the LSC now works with around 150 local partnership teams. Their role is to work on a day-to-day basis with local stakeholders, including local authorities, employers and others, to identify the learning and skills needs of each area.
	The geographic area of the local partnership teams that the LSC has established broadly follows those of local authorities. This approach has already provided a positive model for local partnership working and a more flexible response to local and sub-local learning and skill needs. In London, the London Skills and Employment Board, which is chaired by the Mayor of London, formulates strategies for the work of the LSC in Greater London. That has given us the model for a strategic body that can lead on employment and skills issues on a city-wide basis.
	The amendment would impose an additional requirement on the LSC so that when performing its duty to secure the provision of proper facilities for education and training under proposed new Section 4A(1) to be inserted into the Learning and Skills Act 2000, the LSC would be required to co-operate where appropriate with local education authorities. As we have heard, proposed new subsection (5) provides a list of factors that the LSC must take into account, or act on, when performing the duty to secure the provision of proper facilities for education and training. The LSC must, for example,
	"act with a view to encouraging the diversity of education and training" ,
	and,
	"act with a view to increasing opportunities for individuals to exercise choice".
	It is implicit in such requirements that in order to fulfil its duty in proposed new Section 4A(1), the LSC will need to co-operate with a range of partners at local, regional or national levels—local education authorities, Sector Skills Councils, Jobcentre Plus and regional development agencies, for example. None of those partners is specified in this section of the Bill.
	As part of the machinery of government changes announced in June 2007, we proposed creating two bodies. Responsibility for funding the education and training of young people aged 16 to 19 will transfer to local authorities, supported by, as the Committee is aware, a new Young People's Learning Agency. For adults, the Skills Funding Agency will underpin a new system that will be developed to deliver a comprehensive set of entitlements for learning, advice and support, with colleges and providers having the freedom that they need to meet the needs of employers and individual learners. Clearly, it will be important for both the new funding bodies to engage with each other and local authorities in order to respond to the skills needs at national, regional and local level.
	I hope that the Committee will see that the Learning and Skills Council already works co-operatively with local authorities, and co-operation by the Learning and Skills Council and local education authorities is implicit in the duty in the new section. In addition, introducing the requirement would create a mismatch with the duty on the LSC in Section 2 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. Given the approach I have described, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I am delighted to hear that it is implicit in the Bill's wording that the LSC will have to co-operate with local authorities. She has made that clear from the Dispatch Box. I take from that that it is inconceivable that the LSC might ever fall down in its duty to co-operate appropriately with local authorities. I very much hope that that is the case. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: moved Amendment No. 210:
	Clause 71, page 43, line 10, leave out "but not the age of 25"

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I move this amendment because the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, is not well enough to be present. However, I am sure that he will speak to it at a later stage. Certainly, it is welcome news indeed that level 3 qualifications will be available up to the age of 25. However, the amendment seeks to remove that upper age limit.
	The Leitch report is a great wake-up call for action and the Government's response—to be a world leader in skills by 2020, with more than 40 per cent of people having a qualification at level 4—is certainly brave. However, given that Germany and the USA have already achieved that 40 per cent figure, that will not be enough. Those countries will not stand still for 15 years. They have the basis at level 3 for moving on well beyond that figure by 2020.
	The report on apprenticeships produced in the 2006-07 Session by our Select Committee on Economic Affairs tells us that in 2003, 78 per cent of Germans were already at level 3 and above by their early 30s; a massive 35 percentage points more than our score of 43 per cent. Against that competitive imperative, we need to reformulate our target to at least 45 per cent. In fact, we argue that it needs to be a straight 50 per cent, and that we need to begin to face up to that now.
	The short guide to the Bill tells us that 74 per cent of the UK's working age population in 2020 will be over the age of 18. We can respond to the national economic imperative only by bringing far more of our workforce up to level 3, so that there is a basis for many more moving on to level 4. If we face up to the reality of what needs to be done, instead of ducking it, as has happened over the past 140 years, we need to go all out to lift the proportion of the working population up to level 3, irrespective of age. If people did not have the opportunity given to others to get to level 3 at no cost when they were young—I accept it might partly be their fault that they did not engage with education at an earlier stage—we owe it to them and to the national interest to offer them that opportunity to get a level 3 qualification now.
	Therefore, while we welcome the Government's intention to provide for a first level 3 qualification without fees up to age 25, I stress again that in our view that will not meet the imperative needs of the times. I suspect that the Minister will refer to cost. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not say too much about that because the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has had extensive consultation on it with officials and the Minister and will want to return to it on Report. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, as the Committee would expect me to given some of the amendments that I moved earlier. It is vital that some of the most vulnerable and poorest are given the opportunity to increase their level of educational attainment as far as possible. This starts with a level 1 qualification. To achieve a GCSE at level D to G may be regarded by some people as a great achievement. Without a level 1 you cannot go much further. You need to build on it. If you have not achieved that level of qualification by the age of 19, you will have to start at the bottom. If we are to tackle child poverty, it is particularly important that parents are able to get the qualifications to enable them to hold down a job. I hope that if that occurs, we shall not get the cycle of unqualified parents not having any great knowledge of the world of education or experience of qualifications passing that on to their children, and thereby creating a downward spiral.
	I, too, shall duck cost, but, frankly, whatever it costs, it is worth it because it will be an investment in the long term. People with qualifications will be able to get a job, whereas otherwise they might end up on benefits. They will pay tax. Qualified people tend to get better jobs. With job satisfaction comes a certain balance in one's life style. The possibility of stress and other mental health problems that unemployment brings will be avoided. I hope that the Minister will not refer to silos of funding as regards this group of amendments. It is important to bear in mind that if we invest in education, we may save on expenditure in other departments, including health and criminal justice. I very much support the amendment and shall leave it to others to discuss cost.

Lord Elton: The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has done the Committee a great service in making us look at experience outside the country as we build this country's education system. One has only to look at the exchange rate for sterling at the moment to see that a very important issue is at stake. We are in competition with the rest of the world and cannot afford simply to look at the internal standards of this country if we are to hold our place in it. Therefore, I certainly support the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, to move us on.

Lord Lucas: I hope that the noble Baroness can clear up a confusion for me. I understand that one of the qualifying courses is level 1 literacy. However, if someone is not yet at a level where they can take on level 1 literacy, but needs to do an entry level qualification first, will that be free? The noble Baroness nods. That is encouraging. I did not read the Bill that way.
	Despite the financial qualifications to which the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred, which I am sure will weigh heavily on my Front Bench, it seems to me that the age range during which people really need this provision is that of 30 to 45. Below 30 you can be desired for your body alone. You have a decent set of muscles, as yet undamaged, and you can do heavy work such as tree surgery. You can take on danger and situations needing quick reactions and probably do not yet have family responsibilities. There are a lot of jobs for young men—and, doubtless, young women—who are prepared to work hard. However, when you hit 30, your bones start to creak and you may have broken one or two. You can see that you will not be able to do such work for the rest of your life. That is the period when the need to get a qualification comes to the fore. It is also when you are short of money and you cannot just go without beer for a few months to find the funds for an evening course, because you are committed to family and all the expenses that brings with it. After about the age of 45, perhaps, the utility to the nation of your getting a qualification is not there. We ought to be concentrating on that period of 30 to 45. Limiting this provision to 25 really just picks up a few young people who realise quite early on that they need an extra qualification. I do not think that it will pick up the people to whom it should apply.

Baroness Verma: The amendment removes the upper age limit for those who will receive free tuition. The idea is certainly attractive; education and training should be seen as lifelong processes. We should never wish to say to someone, "You are too old to get this training", or "You have left it too late to enhance your education". At any stage in a person's life, they should have the opportunity, should they want it, to take up education or training. However, I worry about how this would be funded. Aspirations are one thing, but if they are to be encouraged, we must be sure that we can provide for them. Would the Government be prepared to make any extra funding available? We would not like to see the budget for other areas of training being cut.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I can confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has been in extensive contact with the department and with me. I am very sorry that he is not well enough to be here today, because he has put a lot of thought into the amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for her remarks and for moving the amendment, which has allowed us to have this debate.
	It is right to say that we are talking about the priority of where we feel that we can invest funding to have the biggest impact. I make no bones about that; that is what the focus on this age group is about. I understand the intention behind the amendment and the desire to engage as many adults as possible in level 3 qualifications. The provisions in the Bill are aimed at doing just that. We are focusing resources on ensuring that as many adults as possible have literacy and numeracy skills that allow them to function in life on a daily basis and, beyond that, that they have the basic platform for employability that a level 2 qualification provides.
	So why are we focused on helping young people aged 19 to 25? Compared to countries such as France and Germany—it is right that we look beyond our own shores—in the UK we have far fewer adults achieving level 3. Among 19 to 21 year-olds, the evidence shows that the number of people qualified to level 3 as a percentage of the population is on a par with our counterparts in Germany, the US and France. But by the age of 25 to 28, our competitors have caught up and overtaken us: 74 per cent of adults aged 25 to 28 in Germany and 62 per cent in France have level 3 qualifications or higher, compared to 54 per cent in the UK.
	Noble Lords are aware of the challenge that we face in terms of level 3. Learners in that age group are more likely to study full-time and are less likely to have an independent source of income. Evidence suggests that focusing resources on young adults during their transition into work is an effective use of government resources.
	The adult learning survey, last conducted in 2005, shows that the incentives that most appeal to younger adults who are not in learning are those aimed at removing practical obstacles to learning, such as help with learning costs, addressing childcare problems, providing learning in more convenient places and providing time off work to learn. As learners get older, the quality of advice becomes increasingly important. In addition, data on average wages suggests that adults under the age of 25 without a level 3 qualification are in greater need of a government subsidy. According to the labour force survey, mean average weekly wages for 19 to 24 year-olds without a level 3 qualification are £285, compared with £370 for those aged 25 to 29. I think noble Lords can see where I am going with this.
	There are also strong policy reasons for our position. Up to the age of 19, every young person who wants to participate in education and training is guaranteed free access. Beyond 19, there is a clear, well-understood pathway for young people who have achieved a level 3 qualification to progress into higher education. They are well supported to continue their initial education. Even when the other provisions in the Bill that raise the participation age are fully implemented, there will still be young people who, for various reasons, will benefit from being able to access free level 3 qualifications up to the age of 25. That provision will help those young people to finish their education and, I hope and believe, will move more young people on to higher education and careers.
	Finally, there are good, practical reasons why now is not the time to extend the entitlement to free first level 3 qualifications to a wider age group. The administrative entitlement—I understand that means what we are actually doing rather than what we are putting in law—the first full level 3 qualifications began to operate in September 2007. So it is still relatively new, and its practical operation and success need to be assessed and its affordability tested before we examine options for extending it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, suggested, we need to test it. Level 3 learning programmes are expensive, and our initial analysis is that extending the provision to include all adults would cost around £470 million over the next three years. We do not want to put pressure on the resources set aside for helping those with the lowest skill levels, which is crucial to our future economic success and for social justice.
	I reassure noble Lords that we are not closing off the possibility of extending the duty in the way in which the amendment proposes. The proposed power in proposed new subsection 4B(6) would give the Secretary of State the flexibility to change by order, subject to approval by Parliament, the age bracket to which the duty applies. In the future, it may be, for example, that our policies pre- and post-19 are so successful that the current skills gap closes. Then we may wish to refocus resources towards a different age group that had been identified as being in greater need of additional support. We are not, therefore, closing down the avenue that the amendment explores. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I am very grateful indeed for the comments that have been made, and even for the doubts that one or two noble Lords who have spoken had about the amendment. I am particularly grateful for the detailed way in which the Minister replied.
	I admit that, if I were looking at this issue from just the point of view of the education budget, I would see at least some of the Minister's points. But one needs to think, as was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that there are health reasons, including mental health and keeping people alive and out of hospital, that might very well contribute more to the national well-being as far as budgets are concerned.
	On behalf of my noble friend Lord Dearing I thank the Minister very much. I know that my noble friend will be most grateful for what she has said, particularly on flexibility that there may be—if things improve—for a different age level. For the moment, I will withdraw the amendment, read very carefully what has been said and decide what to do at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: moved Amendment No. 210A:
	Clause 71, page 44, line 32, at end insert—
	"( ) a specified vocational qualification at level 1,"

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 211A. Both amendments are in the names of my noble friend Lord Dearing and myself. We very much welcome the provision that has been made in the Bill for those without level 1 skills in English and maths to receive free tuition, but the amendment is designed to give those aiming for a level 1 qualification the same right to free tuition as the Bill gives to those aiming for a level 2 qualification. This means that in addition to a free course in English and maths provided for in the Bill, there would be an additional right to three vocational qualifications at level 1—the equivalent to GCSE passes in grades D to G.
	The people whom we are talking about are the most vulnerable to unemployment as unskilled jobs disappear over the next decade. They are also likely to be the lowest-paid workers and least able to afford any fees. In view of their experience at school, which may not have been beneficial for them, and which may not have been entirely their own fault, they are the people who find it most difficult to get back into the education system. They need incentives, not barriers.
	Empowering them to earn a decent living is surely the best way of meeting the Government's commitment to ending child poverty. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others have touched on the cycle of deprivation. Improving the attitude of these people to education through coming back into it after failing at school is surely an excellent way of enabling and encouraging them to support their children in learning. I have seen excellent examples of that in Sure Start schemes. It is remarkable how a parent who has been absolutely terrified of their schooling can come back into a primary school and start to do courses on their own and, perhaps, with their children. They change their whole attitude to the school. I am sure we would all agree that action to improve the life chances of these people is certainly needed to promote social harmony. We need to be alert to the high proportion of ethnic minority children in this group, particularly those from the Muslim community.
	As an economy, we cannot afford a tail of unskilled and unqualified adults. I quote the speech of the Prime Minister at last year's Labour Party Conference. He said that,
	"this is the century when we cannot afford to waste the talents of anyone. Up against the competition of 2 billion people in India and China, we need to unlock all the talent we have. In the last century the question was, 'can we afford to do this'. In the face of economic challenge, I say: in this century we cannot afford not to".
	For their sakes and for all our sakes—especially for the sakes of the children—we must help these people to earn a living in the challenging times that lie ahead. As the Prime Minster said,
	"we cannot afford not to".
	I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: I touched on this issue in discussing the previous amendment. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. For some people, level 1 is the first stepping-stone, and English and maths alone are not enough—they need to have free tuition in two or three other subjects to be equipped to do a job at all. English and maths on their own will not be enough to get them out of the spiral of poverty and deprivation.

Baroness Verma: We support the introduction of vocational subjects at level 1, to be included with level 1 in English and maths. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, said, it is the groups that are the hardest to reach that need to be encouraged. Level 1 in vocational subjects is the right route to assist them to do that, particularly given that, as the noble Baroness eloquently said, we live in fast-moving times and these groups will need those basic skills if we are to be competitive. We wholeheartedly support that.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for moving the amendment and allowing us to have this short debate. It has been especially interesting because it has led me to think more carefully about the difference between the learning process for school-age children and young people and the policy assumptions we make about adult learners. I hope to convince noble Lords that we see a difference in the approach to adult learners which will enable them to leapfrog level 1. We want adult learners to achieve level 2, which we regard as the foundations for employability and so on.
	I have great sympathy with the intention behind the amendments. As with the other amendments on level 3, if we had greater resources, we would endeavour to make more courses completely free to learners. However, we need to focus on the priority areas set out in the Bill. I understand noble Lords' concerns that some learners without the ability to undertake a course for a level 2 qualification might be missing out because they need to move through the various qualification levels. The school-based system of qualifications where children progress from one level of learning to the next does not necessarily fit adults in the same way. Provided that adults have an opportunity to address the basics of literacy and numeracy, they should be able to access a level 2 qualification and skip one or more of the levels. It is precisely because we want to improve the work and life opportunities of adults and their families that we are proposing incentives to undertake qualifications that make people more employable.
	I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and others who have contributed on the issue of helping unemployed adults or those on a low income. We are committed to supporting learners on low incomes. Those in receipt of means-tested benefits and many on working families' tax credit do not have to pay course fees. This includes those undertaking level 1 qualifications. People with skills at level 2 or higher are half as likely to be unemployed as those below level 2. There is not the same evidence that individuals achieving level 1 qualifications reap such rich returns, and that is why we want to focus on level 2. People can skip directly to level 2. This does not mean that we doubt the importance of other levels of learning, which often provides a valuable progression route into other qualifications and promotes a positive attitude to learning and education. We just do not believe that providing level 1 vocational qualifications free to those without relevant skills is the right use of government funding, as we want to incentivise adults to undertake qualifications from which they stand to gain most. Therefore, again, it is a question of priorities.
	It is important that the Committee does not take away the message that the Government do not value entry and re-engagement learning below level 2, which has been a concern of noble Lords. Indeed, we are investing a total of £1.5 billion each year in learning below level 2. Some £210 million of this annual investment will be spent on informal adult learning, which I know is an issue of great interest in this House. We have just finished consulting on how best to use some of these funds to support individual learning and engagement, and will report back in the autumn. I am sure that we will have the opportunity to have a good discussion about it when the House returns. The Learning and Skills Council's annual statement of priorities, published in November 2007, sets out that in 2008-09 we will support around 380,000 places on foundation learning tier programmes, more than 1.2 million Skills for Life places and around 630,000 places through the adult safeguarded budget. That is more than 2.2 million LSC-funded places on learning below level 2.
	Through the creation of the foundation learning tier, we are also rationalising qualifications at entry level and level 1 to ensure that learners who take these courses from age 14 onwards will be gaining valuable qualifications that help them to progress. We also made a commitment in the further education White Paper to extend the level 2 entitlement, over time and as resources allow, so that it can include programmes within the foundation learning tier that support progression through to level 2—the key level—and beyond. Even without that extension, we expect a significant proportion of learners undertaking level 1 qualifications via the foundation learning tier to have their fees remitted in full and thus receive free learning.
	As with my previous answer on extending the free entitlement to level 3 courses beyond the age of 25, the Government will continue to monitor progress towards the Leitch ambition very carefully. In future, as I have said before, should we decide that we are in a position to extend the legislative duty to courses below level 2, the proposed order-making power will allow us to do that.
	I hope that I have convinced noble Lords that we are committed to funding support for learning below level 2 and that the amendment is not necessary.

Lord Elton: The noble Baroness's last remark was reassuring because the door is left open for her to do what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, would have her do. However, speaking as someone who is not yet familiar with this range of education, perhaps I may ask her to clarify something for me. Has she been saying that vocational education is not based on cumulative learning and that therefore it is not necessary to have level 1 in order to get level 2; or is she saying that it is necessary to have level 1 but that people should find another means of paying for it; or is she saying that it is embedded in a system altogether different from that in the Bill?

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I am saying that, provided people have the literacy and numeracy skills to function in normal life, we believe that a level 2 training course is accessible for them and that adults will benefit most in terms of improved job opportunities and life chances by going straight into a level 2 course. A great deal of effort and thought has been put into defining level 2—I am told that it is a question of both height and breadth—and we really do want to incentivise level 2. I suppose that I am trying to have it both ways, because I am also saying that there is funding for people on low incomes and for those on benefits if they choose to do a level 1 course and are unable to pay because of a lack of means. However, in terms of making an entitlement for adult learners, our priority is level 2 because we believe that it is possible for adults to skip a step and to go straight in provided that they have those basic skills.

Lord Lucas: The noble Baroness may not be surprised at my continuing confusion. She said clearly that paragraph 1(c)—
	"a specified vocational qualification at level 2"—
	does not include a specified qualification at level 1, but earlier she indicated to me that paragraph 1(a)—
	"a specified qualification in level 1 literacy"—
	would include an entry-level qualification in literacy. I just do not see how the wording admits of both interpretations.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I was referring to the fact that through Skills for Life and a whole range of initiatives we fund training which is entry-level literacy, so it is not an entitlement in the Bill. I was trying to draw attention to the £1.5 billion that we invest in pre-level 2 skills, which include Skills for Life and the incredible amount of adult literacy work that goes on, but it is not in the entitlement. I shall write to the noble Lord to clarify that and will copy it to others.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I am rather more disappointed by the answer to these amendments than was the case previously. Although I understand—at least, I hope I do—what the noble Baroness is saying about the ability of certain people to go straight in at level 2, I was trying to draw attention to the group that would probably need to have their confidence re-established by level 1 so that they could continue. Perhaps not all those people will be affected, but if it includes those who have very little money but do not have funding made available for these courses—

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Baroness but I know that in a few minutes we will be going on to the dinner break debate. I wanted to spend a couple of minutes reminding noble Lords that when we talk about the investment that the Government are making in learning below level 2, we are talking not only about an annual investment in informal adult learning—about which I know the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has been very concerned—but about 1.2 million Skills for Life places. When we have more leisure, I shall be very happy to send a note to Members of the Committee setting out exactly where that funding goes. I do not wish noble Lords to have the impression that we are not committed to helping people to progress to level 2, as that is the whole point of what we are trying to do. However, that commitment is not entirely encapsulated in the Bill, as an awful lot of work goes on outside this legislation.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I was merely trying to put across that the last thing one wants to hear is that those who are trying to increase their skills for their own sake and for the sake of the whole community are to be further deprived of the ability to do that. Bearing in mind that we have to move on to the dinner hour debate, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and have kindly supported the amendment. I shall withdraw the amendment but shall definitely have to read carefully what has been said, as will my noble friend Lord Dearing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 211 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendments Nos. 211A to 213 not moved.]
	Clause 71 agreed to.

Lord Tunnicliffe: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Royal Assent

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Appropriation (No. 2) Act,
	Finance Act,Sale of Student Loans Act,Special Educational Needs (Information) Act,Statute Law (Repeals) Act,Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act,Health and Social Care Act,Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act,National Insurance Contributions Act, London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act.

Health: Working-age Population

Lord Low of Dalston: asked Her Majesty's Government how they will respond to the recommendations in Dame Carol Black's Review of the Health of Britain's Working Age Population.
	My Lords, I have tabled this Question because I want to draw the House's attention to the review of the health of the working-age population carried out by Dame Carol Black and published in March. The debate could not be more timely in that the review has potential major implications for the whole question of welfare to work, which is very much in the headlines today, through its emphasis on keeping people off welfare by keeping them in work.
	The review sets out three main principles: preventing illness and promoting health and well-being; early intervention for those who develop a health condition; and an improvement in the health of those out of work so that everyone with the potential to work has the support that they need to do so. Dame Carol noted that 175 million working days were lost to sickness absence in 2006, and that estimates by the CBI showed that around 43 per cent of these days are attributable to employees on long-term sickness of 20 days or more. The report focuses on the urgent need for improvements in occupational health and vocational rehabilitation services to provide early intervention in cases of ill health and prevent those off work on sickness grounds from the all-too-common drift into worklessness and dependence on benefits.
	An example is given of people off work with back pain; 35 per cent generally return to work within two days, 67 per cent within seven days and 84 per cent by the end of four weeks. However, this still leaves 16 per cent who have not returned to work after a month. After around 40 days off work, the likelihood of a person returning to work diminishes rapidly, making early intervention vital if a person is not, after 24 weeks, to make the transition to incapacity benefit.
	As many noble Lords will be aware, incapacity benefit will be replaced for new claimants by the employment and support allowance in October. This benefit will require most claimants to take part in work-related activity—training and work experience, for example—as a condition of receiving benefit. This is a welcome change, which will, hope, see claimants given impairment-specific support—that is, support attuned to the needs of their particular condition—through the pathways to work scheme, to enable them to move towards work. Relating this to what Dame Carol says, both in preventing people from falling out of work due to ill health and supporting those who have left work and are on incapacity benefit, earlier intervention and greater support are needed to achieve better outcomes.
	I turn to some of the specific proposals in Dame Carol's report. She notes that 40 per cent of organisations have no sickness absence management policy at all, and therefore proposes that a national fit-for-work service is needed to ensure that employers, particularly small and medium-sized employers, have adequate occupational health advice. The service would see a dedicated case manager work with employees in the early stages of sickness absence to ensure that the right mix of support is put in place for them to manage their condition and remain in, or make a return to, work. Dame Carol proposes that the service should be piloted to test out different models of service delivery, potentially giving private and voluntary sector providers opportunities to deliver services under the NHS. The pilots would then need to be evaluated and rolled out across the country if judged successful.
	The second main proposal in the report concerns the idea of GPs issuing patients with a fit note instead of signing them off work with a sick note. That mainly focuses on what patients cannot do. Dame Carol proposes reversing this with a system in which the doctor discusses with the patient what work they might be able to do and suggests how a return to work might be achieved.
	The Government's formal response to Dame Carol's report is not expected until the autumn. However, on 17 March, the right honourable James Purnell, MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, made a Statement to the House of Commons welcoming the review and announcing a number of measures designed to respond to its recommendations: an £11 million capital fund to set up six new NHS Plus demonstration sites to look at innovative ways of supporting small and medium-sized businesses with occupational health services, adding to the five demonstration sites established in 2007; an exploration of Dame Carol's suggestion for a fit-for-work service for people in the early stages of sickness absence; the development of a national strategy on mental health; and improved access to psychological therapy programmes.
	Dame Carol makes it clear in her report that much more needs to be done to support those who experience a health condition while in work to retain their employment. The Minister will be aware that the Employment Retention Bill was introduced by the honourable Member for Glasgow North West, John Robertson, in the other place to highlight the need for stronger rights in this area. Each year, around 25,000 people permanently leave work because of ill health and disability. With timely assessment and support, many could have remained in work. RNIB—of which I am chairman, and so declare an interest—has been working with employers to establish the financial benefits of supporting newly disabled employees to remain in work. Lloyds TSB conducted such an exercise and was able to estimate that the net gain from retaining a clerical member of staff is around £2,500; for a senior clerical staff member, this is around £4,500; and for a manager, around £9,000.
	However, what is required of an employer in terms of providing assessments and support to newly disabled staff is unclear following a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision. In the case of Spence v Intype Libra Ltd, it was ruled that the Disability Discrimination Act does not require employers to undertake an assessment of the needs of staff at risk of losing their job because of a disability or health condition. The Employment Retention Bill seeks to create a right to an assessment for staff at risk of losing their job, and appropriate rehabilitation and training support to enable them to make a return to work. Will the Government support a measure such as the Employment Retention Bill, or include such a provision in its own legislation with a view to clarifying the law in this area?
	The welfare reform Green Paper, published today, states that the Government will,
	"work with key stakeholder organisations as we develop our commitment to deliver the Independent Living Strategy".
	I take this to mean the commitment to develop a cross-governmental national strategy on employment retention, as set out in the independent living strategy. Can the Minister confirm this, and give a timetable for the development of this strategy, and also state how the Government will go about investigating whether initiatives, such as a right to request an employment retention assessment, would be an appropriate way forward?
	In April, Health Minister Ivan Lewis announced 11 demonstration projects to,
	"pave the way for ... trusts to develop their own occupational health services".
	Project funding was to be managed by NHS Plus, a network of NHS occupational health departments across England that aims to increase the availability of occupational health services for small and medium-sized employers. I am pleased to learn from today's Green Paper that the Government are to pilot the fit-for-work service in city strategy areas. This potentially goes considerably wider. However, I would be keen to learn from the Minister how many pilots there will be for testing out different delivery mechanisms, how long they will last and what specific health conditions or disabilities they will cover. This is an important issue because the pilots announced so far do not test the full fit-for-work case-managed service proposed by Dame Carol. All the pilot funding has gone to NHS trusts, so it is not yet clear if or how the different models of partnership delivery proposed in the Black report will be tested. It would be a lost opportunity if the pilots were to focus only on the largest numbers of people at risk of losing their jobs—those who have developed mental health and musculoskeletal problems. While the number of people on benefits with such problems is substantial, it is vital that the pilots also shed light on how to support other groups, such as people experiencing sight loss, as each year 25 per cent of those who begin to lose their sight while in work will leave their employment. If they could be helped to stay in work it would make a considerably greater impact on the employment of visually impaired people than getting them into work for the first time.
	Will the Minister also elaborate on the Government's welcome acceptance of Dame Carol's suggestion of the fit note, or at any rate the idea that the sick note system needs to be reviewed? The desire for GPs to focus on what work their patients can do rather than what they cannot clearly fits in with a change in focus manifested in the move for new claimants from incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance. However, GPs do not have specialist occupational health training, so there is a question to be asked about whether they are the best people to be making recommendations on work-related issues.
	The Minister will know that the access-to-work scheme can provide support for critical job retention assessments when an employee is at risk of losing his job because of disability, leading to implementation of a package of support to enable the employee to retain his employment. In 2007-08 access to work provided grants totalling £62 million to help around 40,000 people to keep or get work. I should say at once how much I welcome today's announcement of a doubling in the budget for access to work, but can the Minister say how this important scheme will fit in with the fit for work service? There is evidence that it is not as widely known as it should be. It should be promoted and fully integrated as part of the back-to-work services.
	In conclusion, the Black report makes an important contribution to the debate on how we stop people who experience ill health and disability while in work losing their jobs and moving on to benefits. Dame Carol suggests a number of innovative policy and service delivery changes that are most welcome. I realise that a formal response is not expected until after the Recess, but I hope that the Minister may give us a further indication of the Government's thinking and respond to some of my more detailed questions.

Baroness Thomas of Winchester: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, on giving us the opportunity on this of all days to discuss this important report. As he said, today's debate is particularly timely in view of the Government's Statement on welfare reform today which, among other things, puts more flesh on some familiar bones from last year's Welfare Reform Act. It gives us the opportunity to look at the health of not only those out of work but those in employment. Dame Carol has posed some major challenges for the Government as well as for employers, some of which the Government have already welcomed.
	Before turning to the proposals in the review, I must express my concerns about the new regime which was the focus of last year's Welfare Reform Act, and which will start this autumn in earnest when employment and support allowance replaces incapacity benefit for new benefit claimants. By then, the economic downturn will have started seriously to affect the number of unemployed, and it could be the worst possible time for vulnerable people, even with support, to be encouraged to try to find some work rather than claiming benefits. Already the percentage of those claiming unemployment benefit has risen to 2.6 of the working age population, the biggest rise in 16 years. Will employers, when faced with a larger than ever cohort of healthy people who are in the jobs market, be willing to offer employment to those whose health may make their attendance or reliability more unpredictable?
	At one point Dame Carol says confidently that jobs are "plentiful" with more than 500,000 unfilled vacancies. I wonder how long that will be true. I hate to sound gloomy, but one has to face up-to-date facts. The review highlights the fact that Britain is not, as some of the tabloids would have us believe, a work-shy nation. By last year, 74 per cent of working age people were recorded as employed—close to a record high. The Government would like to see that figure rise even higher—to 80 per cent—and we on these Benches agree with them, but only if the way this is brought about is sensible, well- managed and well-resourced. Higher employment is good not only for the economy but has also been shown to be good for the general health of the population, and particularly for alleviating child poverty. Even the employment rate for disabled people has shown a welcome rise in the past 10 years from 38 per cent to 48 per cent, but there is a very long way to go to improve that figure.
	The review sets out three objectives in the quest for a better vision of work and health in Britain. They are: the prevention of illness and promotion of health and well-being; early intervention in cases of ill health, and an improvement in the health of those unemployed to help them find work. No one can possibly object to those laudable aims, but the key question is how exactly to achieve them when the word "health" spans all kinds of situations from common infections, through all the problems associated with obesity, addictions, the range of mental health disorders, both long and short term, and all the musculoskeletal conditions right through to serious, life-threatening illnesses. There has to be a raft of initiatives for each of the three objectives because one size cannot possibly fit so many different states of health—a nettle that Dame Carol has grasped with a comprehensive and ambitious list of proposals.
	She starts by spelling out clearly that good working practices lead to improved financial performance. Although there are many large companies that take the health of their workforce seriously and have strategies in place for helping those who are absent through ill health, many smaller employers do not have any human resource function of any sort, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, relying on informal contacts with absent staff or not keeping in contact at all.
	Dame Carol does not exclude those smaller companies from her recommendations, the key one being that every company should have some sort of ill health absence management policy, with the Government piloting a new fit for work service. This ambitious proposal is at the heart of her recommendations and is based, as we have heard, on an early intervention, holistic approach to workplace ill health absence, which aims to look at the whole picture of a person's life—that is, the biological, psychological and social impact. The rationale of such a service is indisputable. Dame Carol concludes:
	"Based on the biosychosocial model, a case-managed, multidisciplinary Fit for Work service would ensure a prompt, holistic assessment of patients' needs. It would then provide them with an individualised action plan for achieving recovery".
	I believe that the Government have accepted the recommendation to pilot this proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Low, asked some important questions about the pilots and I, too, would like some details. Can the Minister tell us where the pilots will be, who will be able to access them, whether they will cover just some conditions, when they will start, and how much—crucially—they are expected to cost?
	Turning now to the other side of the coin—the health of those out of work—Dame Carol cites the huge number of people, 600,000, who move on to incapacity benefits each year, around 28 per cent from jobseeker's allowance and 55 per cent from work or a period of ill health absence from work. That last figure leads her to the conclusion, which must be right, that more needs to be done to address the health conditions of those sliding on to benefits from work. She emphatically makes the point that the ESA mantra that the focus will be on what people can do rather than what they cannot do is not enough, and she recommends expanding the fit for work service with its holistic approach to cover workless people. This, she suggests, should cover such services as cognitive behavioural therapy, physiotherapy, advice and counselling for wider social problems, such as debt management.
	I find that recommendation much more helpful and hopeful for unemployed people than the more punitive-sounding regimes in the previous Welfare Reform Act. As I have said before in this Chamber, Citizens Advice, which is, after all, at the coalface, says that at present employers are very reluctant to employ people with health problems. It sees many people who are dismissed from work while they are off sick, simply on account of their illness.
	This brings me to the whole question of those with mental ill-health problems. The cost to business of mental ill-health at work is reckoned to be £25.9 billion, with more than half of that cost being lost productivity among people who turn up for work but do not work effectively, which is now called "presenteeism". Dame Carol commissioned her own report from the Royal College of Psychiatrists entitled Mental Health and Work, which gave the astonishing figure that 5 million people of working age have a common mental health disorder and just under 1 million have a severe condition. Mental health conditions are now the single biggest cause of absence from work and claims for incapacity benefits. Less than a quarter of people with mental health conditions are in employment, compared with just under half of all disabled people of working age.
	Measures to tackle the problem must therefore be given the highest priority. In last year's Welfare Reform Act there was the welcome news that more money is going to be put into training in cognitive behavioural therapies and that there will be quicker access for patients, and from today's Statement we learn that the Government are to set out a national strategy for mental health and employment. That is good news indeed, but how many extra people are training as cognitive behavioural therapists and how long is the average waiting time for a referral from a GP? That is one part of the problem.
	The other part of the problem is the attitude of employers. In the royal college's report to Dame Carol, one patient is quoted as saying that he really wanted to apply for a job as a community warden. He said:
	"I really wanted the job, but I decided not to apply. I knew I wouldn't get it. Having a mental health problem is worse than having a criminal record when it comes to getting a job".
	If people with mental health problems finally get a job, they frequently report being denied opportunities for training, promotion or transfer, saying that work colleagues tend to view mental illness as a personal failure. It is interesting that a recent survey of employers by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that 61 per cent reported a positive experience of employing people with a history of mental health problems, while only 15 per cent reported a negative experience.
	So what are the keys to reducing mental ill-health absence at work? One of Dame Carol's main findings was that work is good for health, but that means that employers, particularly line managers, being aware of how to treat their workers well; for example, watching out for, and dealing with, bullying; making sure employees do not have unrealistic expectations; and allowing workers to have some control over how they work. It also means allowing the possibility of flexible working for those who are suffering mental distress, ensuring that they have speedy access to psychological therapies and giving them effective rehabilitation after time off work.
	I have one minute remaining. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that this House has a good record as an employer and keeps closely in touch with those who are absent through ill health with a view to helping them return as appropriate. The Government are one of the biggest employers in the country, so I hope their employment record is as good as that of this House.
	Dame Carol has produced a clear blueprint for the way ahead. We welcome it and look forward to the Government's response.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, for enabling this important debate. It is certainly necessary and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, it is timely to ask Her Majesty's Government how they will respond to the recommendations of Dame Carol Black's incisive review of the health of the working age population.
	The report has correctly been highly praised. It looks at these problems through the right end of the telescope. The subjects it raises are an integral part of this country's future and deserve through discussion. It seems that today is the day for such discussion. It was but three hours ago that I stood here across from the Minister while he delivered a Statement on the subject of welfare reform. Noble Lords will be experiencing a sense of déjà vu because Dame Carol Black's report is a precursor of the Government's proposals, which were announced to Parliament today, as was the report by David Freud. I do not want to be guilty of repetition for there are other facets of this problem that require our attention. Indeed, if anyone is to be found guilty of repeating what has been said before, it is the Government—I am sure the Minister will forgive my tease—who have that honour because the Statement this afternoon was nearly a straight repetition of the Conservative welfare policy as set out in January.
	Notwithstanding today's Statement, I hope that the Government are still prepared to respond, eventually, to Dame Carol Black's review. It was published in March and, other than in the Statement today, the Government have yet to give any indication of whether they intend to listen to its findings. Thus, my first question for the Minister is simply: when can we expect a response?
	The central intention of Dame Carol Black's report was to examine not only the costs of ill-health and its impact on work, but also the human costs that are often hidden and privately borne. The report noted that:
	"Life expectancy and numbers in employment are higher than ever before, yet around 175 million working days were lost to illness in 2006. This represents a significant cost, not only economically, but also in terms of social exclusion".
	The economic impact is enormous. The report cited the fact that:
	"The economic costs of sickness absence and worklessness associated with working age ill-health are over £100 billion a year—greater than the current annual budget for the NHS and equivalent to the entire GDP of Portugal".
	That is indeed grave. Yet what is being done about the other impacts of worklessness? What have the Government done to address the very serious problem of social exclusion?
	The report suggests a number of measures designed to tackle some of these problems. One of its recommendations is the establishment of robust models for measuring and reporting on the benefits of employer investment in health and well-being. Is that something that the Government will consider? The report advocates business-led health and well-being consultancy services to improve occupational health support. What is the Government's view on that? This is a pressing problem that will grow in future. Thus, it is important that we hear what the Government will take away from this report and what they plan to continue to ignore.
	The report raises a problem of alarming magnitude, that of benefit dependence. We have been focusing on this issue this afternoon. The Minister at times sounded complacent that the problem is reducing. It is not. My figures tell me that there are currently 2.6 million people claiming incapacity benefit. Of those, 1.8 million—nearly 70 per cent—began their claim after 1997. This Government have made more and more people dependent on benefits. This tide must not only be stemmed but must be reversed. Why has it taken the Government so long to acknowledge that there is a serious and deeply entrenched problem? On this Government's watch, 1.8 million people started claiming and have failed to get off the benefit because of a constant cycle of ill-conceived and ill-managed reforms. Do the Government now have the courage to agree that over the past 10 years, they have failed to help these people get back to work?
	I do not want to present your Lordships' House with instances of gloom and doom only. There are ways out of the current crisis; indeed, the Statement discussed some of them. We welcomed it because it showed that the Government are finally willing to follow the Conservative lead. We support the proposals for compulsory community work programmes and for independent medical assessments for incapacity benefit claimants. We support these proposals now, just as we supported them when we announced them six months ago. In January, Ministers called our ideas unworkable and uncosted. They are now government policy. Yet in politics, it is important to pursue the best ideas, regardless of origin, and for that, I applaud the Government's courage in such a drastic U-turn.
	There is a risk, still. If the problems outlined by Dame Carol Black are to be tackled, there must be for support for solutions. Incapacity benefit dependence is a blight where it is not appropriate. If measures to get able people back to work are not implemented with care, consideration and full support, we will continue the cycle of failure. It seems to be another of the Government's great skills not only to steal Conservative ideas—for which I forgive them—but then to implement them poorly, under-resourced and then watch them discredited. There is too much at risk in this area to allow that to happen.
	One measure that is in particular danger of this is the allowance of private sector provision of all programmes to get people back to work. The expertise and dynamism of the volunteer and private sectors must be harnessed properly if we are to see a real transition in the workforce. Half measures will not work. Results must be rewarded fairly. The private sector must be supported properly. Dame Carol Black's report must be taken into account by the Government. The costs are far too high for it to be wholly ignored. I hope that the Minister will address the report's recommendations in some detail in his reply, so that the Government may pursue the noble cause of securing our workforce and putting all able Britons back into work and back on their own two feet.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for calling the debate this evening and for his typically thoughtful speech, as well as for the powerful contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, on a day when the Government have set out the next stage of their plans for reforming welfare to ensure that no one is written off, it is fitting that we should have this opportunity to discuss the importance of helping people to stay in work or to return to work quickly when health conditions develop.
	Arguably, that is both the alpha and the omega of successful welfare reform. It is the alpha because acting to prevent ill health leading to long-term absence is the first line of defence against worklessness and the very best way to reduce the numbers still coming on to incapacity benefits—still some 600,000 a year, more than half of whom are coming from employment. It is the omega because the ultimate ambition of welfare reform is no longer simply to help the workless get back to work but actually to make that return to work sustainable.
	That cannot be achieved without a new approach to health and work—the vision set out so clearly by Dame Carol in her review earlier this year. Responding to the challenges that Dame Carol has laid out could not be more important. The economic costs are well documented and have been cited by noble Lords tonight. Sickness absence and worklessness in Britain cost more than £100 billion a year—greater than the current annual budget for the NHS. The human costs are potentially even greater. When an adult is prevented from working because of a health condition, the bottom line is often the impact on his or her family and children. There is clear evidence that families who have no one working are more likely to suffer from persistent low income and poverty.
	Persistently low parental incomes do not just lead to children living below the poverty line; they also lead to worse health outcomes for those children. For example, the prevalence of psychiatric disorders among children aged five to 15 in families whose parents have never worked is almost double that of children with parents in low-skilled jobs, and around five times greater than for those with parents in professional occupations.
	A separate study published in the British Medical Journal showed that the death rate from all external causes for children of parents classified as "never having worked" or as "long-term unemployed" was 13.1 times that for children of parents who were professionals. We cannot hope to reach our goals of helping a million off incapacity benefits, reaching 80 per cent employment or ending child poverty unless we act together to address these challenges.
	As we talk about change today, we should recognise that we would not be within reach of these goals were it not for the progress that we have already made over the past decade or more. Claimant unemployment is near to its lowest level for 30 years. More people are in work than ever before—an increase of more than 3 million compared to 1997. As the noble Baroness highlighted, the current employment rate is more than 74 per cent. There has been an end to the year-on-year increase in the number of people on incapacity benefits, with about 140,000 fewer claimants than at the peak in 2003. Perhaps I will not take the opportunity to joust with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about data, which we touched on this afternoon. I simply do not accept that the problem has got worse under this Government. It has got better. We are reducing the number on incapacity benefits. There are more than 400,000 fewer children living in workless households than in 1997.
	These changes provide the platform for further progress, and today's Green Paper takes those next steps. It offers more support in return for more responsibility—a benefit system that rewards responsibility, gives people the incentive to do the right thing, and encourages them to look for work and seek the skills they need for the future. It also ensures that opportunity is available to everyone; it seeks to end the current injustice whereby too many people are written off to a life on benefits and excluded from help to get back to work.
	Importantly, it is a set of reforms which puts the support to help people remain in work at the heart of the welfare agenda. That is why we are taking forward Dame Carol's recommendation to pilot a "fit for work" service, for the first time bringing together health and employment support to help those in the early stages of sickness absence. Both the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked about the "fit for work" service. I hope that they will understand that I cannot today give the specific details of our piloting plans, but it is clear that it is intended as a multidisciplinary service precisely because of the multiplicity of factors that take people out of work, not just the most common mental health or musculoskeletal conditions. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, also spoke about the range of conditions that Dame Carol's recommendations should encompass. Dame Carol has made clear that we should not overmedicalise the challenges.
	Flexibility and creativity will also be crucial. The pilots will test a variety of approaches to delivery. That is why we have today announced that we will be challenging successful city strategies to develop innovative proposals to run some of the pilots as part of the broader pilot programme for the "fit for work" service.
	We have also been working in partnership with healthcare professional and employer representative bodies to develop a reformed statutory medical certificate or "sick note", consulting on the changes this autumn and intending to introduce the new form during 2009. The noble Lord, Lord Low, rightly emphasised the importance not just of moving towards more of a "fit note" but the wider question of supporting GPs and other healthcare professionals in making recommendations on work-related issues. That is why, as well as reforming the medical certificate, we are also working in partnership with healthcare professional bodies to take forward a programme of work to improve the training and guidance for healthcare professionals in providing advice on fitness for work.
	GPs will always be the first port of call for a patient who develops a health condition. With the evidence we now have that work is generally good for health it would be wrong not to support GPs in reflecting this in the advice that they give to their patients. Critically the reforms must be about support for GPs, not placing burdens on them—about helping GPs to give the best possible advice to their patients. The reality is that too often signing a sick note becomes a substitute for treatment. That is not a GP's fault; too often they do not have any other options.
	That is why in taking forward Dame Carol's recommendations in this area we aim to bring about systemic change—not just a different piece of paper but a radical overhaul of occupational health which provides more support for GPs, employees and employers alike.
	That is the ambition of the "fit for work" service. It is why we are supporting the Faculty and Society of Occupational Medicine in working to unite the occupational health profession. It is why, in addition to our existing investment to support the employment and retention of disabled people—including through WORKSTEP, work preparation and the employability programmes—we have today announced that we are doubling the Access to Work budget to help about an extra 25,000 people a year to stay in or get back into work.
	That is more support, which a "fit for work" service pilot could draw on in helping someone to stay in or return to work quickly. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Low, about the need to promote the Access to Work service, as we discussed earlier.
	Over the coming months, as part of our commitment to deliver the independent living strategy, we will explore the effectiveness of employee retention assessments in helping disabled people to stay in work, thereby seeking to strike a critical balance between providing the best possible support for employers to make workplace adjustments while ensuring that we do not place unnecessary burdens on businesses, especially smaller ones in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, has emphasised, it is particularly important to address the current lack of available occupational health support.
	Dame Carol recommended that government should work with employers and representative bodies to develop a robust model for measuring and reporting on the benefits of businesses investing in the health and well-being of their staff, and that employers should use this to report progress to their boards and in company accounts. Earlier this month, we launched a pilot of such a model—Business HealthCheck—in partnership with PricewaterhouseCoopers and Business in the Community. More than 250 organisations from across the private and public sectors have already registered to take part in the pilot.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, spoke in particular about mental health. The Government are also committed to improving support for those with mental health conditions. Over the next three years, recurrent funding rising to £173 million has been allocated to improving access to psychological therapies. Further funds will be made available to test the impact of employment support advisers working in the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme. The noble Baroness asked me for statistics on the number of therapists in training. I do not have those to hand, but they are available, I am sure, and I will provide her with them.
	We will build on this progress over the coming months by setting out a national strategy for mental health and employment. A steering group of eminent specialists, chaired by Dame Carol Black, met for the first time earlier this month and will oversee the development of the strategy. They will be assisted by members with business and third-sector backgrounds to advise on all aspects of mental health and employment. In particular, they will focus on how mental health provision can be better tailored and integrated to help people to find work, to stay in work or to return to work. Taken together, these changes mark a radical step change in the way in which we approach the health of the working-age population. Over the coming months, as we develop the Government's response to Dame Carol's review, so we must continue to build on the partnership working that has defined this agenda from the very inception of our health, work and well-being strategy back in 2005. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked when we could expect the response. We aim to give it in the autumn. I do not have a precise date, but it will probably be towards the end of October.
	Employers, healthcare professionals, unions and individuals—indeed, all those with an interest in the future health of Britain's working-age population—should be engaged. Our goals are clear: to help more people to enter and remain in work, to establish healthier workplaces as the norm, and to eradicate the remaining legacy of poverty and social deprivation that still too often blights workless families and communities in Britain. It is clear that delivering this vision will be good for Britain and that, quite simply, we will not secure the future health of our nation without it.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.31 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.13 to 8.31 pm.]

Education and Skills Bill

House again in Committee.
	Clause 72 [Benefit and training information]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 72 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Glentoran: This is a probing question on a serious problem. In the light of the Government's track record on data security, what safeguards will be in place to ensure that this information will be passed securely between government departments and devolved Administrations? I should perhaps give the noble Baroness warning that all my points will be questions.
	Will this information be disaggregated so that only information for Wales is passed down to the Assembly? How will that process be undertaken? I am, of course, wearing my Welsh hat. What limits are there on what information can be passed down? Who will it apply to? Does this cover people living in Wales or those who were educated in Wales or have lived in Wales, but have now moved across the border? How will the Government ensure that the information is kept anonymous? Will the Minister give examples of how this information will be used? Finally, what legislative authority is the Secretary of State using to pass information on individual's benefits, income tax and tax credit status to Welsh Assembly Ministers, as proposed in these clauses?

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I hope to reassure the noble Lord in responding to his questions, but if I have not answered him fully by the end of my remarks, I will write to him and circulate my response to Members of the Committee in case others are interested as well. In considering these very technical clauses, it may be helpful if I set out why the Government believe that data on benefits, learning and employment need to be shared between Whitehall departments and the devolved Administrations.
	In the past, the biggest barrier to full employment was a shortage of jobs, but today and tomorrow it will be the shortage of the right skills that will lie between us and our goal of employment opportunity for all those we seek to serve. The Government are determined to help people get back into work and help them get on at work so they can build a good life for themselves and their families. As we all agreed in discussing the new rights to training established in Clause 71, having the right skills is crucial to achieving this goal. But too often in the past there have been unhelpful gaps between the support provided by Jobcentre Plus and that provided by colleges.
	On 12 June, the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions launched Work Skills, the Government's next steps in the integration of welfare and skills services, to ensure they can respond to the needs and ambitions of both employers and individuals. This underpins the shared objective between my department and the Department for Work and Pensions of moving more people into sustainable employment and progression. The command paper sets out the steps we are taking to radically improve how our work and skills services are delivered. At the heart of this approach is a commitment to join up employment and skills services to make them more effective, and this is the key point. It means personal skills accounts to improve access to skills support, information and advice. It also means better advice on training, careers and job opportunities, with skills health checks to assess individual skill needs against job requirements and personal aspirations.
	Alongside this, Jobcentre Plus and the Learning and Skills Council and learning providers will work more closely together to ensure that benefit customers who need help with their skills are given what they need to get jobs, stay in work and progress in their skills and careers. If we are to make this joined-up approach work, it is clear that we need to do more than simply measure job outcomes and training outcomes in isolation. We need instead to know how well our programmes are doing in helping people off benefits and into sustainable employment, with continuing progression as they improve their skills in work. Currently, the Government do not have the necessary information to do that. The limited and tightly restricted sharing of data between researchers in government departments and the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland established by these clauses will make that analysis possible. These clauses provide for measuring the outcomes of the policy we have been debating.
	The information to be shared under Clauses 72 to 76 and the subsequent analysis will ensure that researchers are able to determine whether the qualifications and skills being achieved by adults are economically valuable. By economically valuable, I mean that individuals completing their learning achieve some increase in their employment chances and/or their wages over the medium to long term; that is, a measurable outcome in terms of improved salary or progression in work. As a result, the Government will be able to ensure not only that taxpayers' money is being spent effectively, but also that these individuals are being helped to get a good job and improve their standard of living.
	The effect of this Bill in relation to the sharing of data is very specific. During consideration in another place, my honourable friend David Lammy, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, tabled a number of technical amendments to these clauses to improve the drafting and bring greater clarity about the information that can be disclosed and used. Clause 72(4) now makes clear the purposes for which the data can be used and disclosed. These are strictly limited to evaluating and assessing the effectiveness of education and training policies and social security or employment policies as they relate to education and training. I can reassure the Committee that the departments could not use the information in an operational context to pursue individuals. This information is not about Connexions and the sharing of knowledge which dominated much of the debate earlier in Committee; this is about research into the effectiveness of policies.
	At the point at which data will be used by researchers, items which might explicitly identify individuals will be removed. So we are talking about anonymised data. Clause 75 creates a new offence for the wrongful onward disclosure of data. Any onward disclosure of information outside the departments or the devolved Administrations concerned without lawful authority would be an offence. In addition, any disclosure of the data for uses other than those set out in the clauses without lawful authority would be an offence, as would disclosing data where identities are discoverable. It is a very high test. The new offence created through the Bill would sit alongside any new sanction for the most serious breaches of data principles on which the Government have agreed to consult following the recommendations of the Poynter review.
	Without the specific data sharing set out in the Bill, we will not be in a position to target government funding effectively to improve learning outcomes and employment prospects. Alternative methods such as destination surveys are prohibitively expensive and, given that the Government hold the data, we think this is the right approach. So, given the safeguards that are in place and the better informed debate that all those interested in these matters will be able to have, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his objection to the clause standing part of the Bill.
	I have a helpful diagram here. What will happen is that the departments will have their own non-anonymised data, for which they are responsible, and these will be passed to the DWP, which will carry out the anonymising. The DWP will then pass them back to the departments for the analysts to work on the data in an anonymised form for research purposes. The devolved Administrations, for example, will be able to receive data on a range of issues but they will not be able to see the individual to whom the data refer; they will know only that it is a recipient of training who has or has not progressed as a result of an investment made in their training. It is very much a resource for government researchers to track carefully the value of the investment that has been made in the education and training to which we are committing. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to support the clause.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness for her response, the latter part of which was of more note. When one first looks at Clauses 72 and 73 one is quite horrified. Clause 72 states that the personal information within subsection (2),
	"is about an individual who has attained the age of 19",
	and that it is held by the Secretary of State for whatever purposes he wants. It states that the information can be devolved to almost any authority he so chooses. We, of course, are not party to what information might be supplied. The noble Baroness said that the data can be anonymised, but I wonder what that will cost and how thorough it would be.
	Clause 73 states:
	"The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs may disclose information relating to income tax or tax credits to a person for use in connection with the exercise of an assessment function of the Secretary of State or a devolved authority".
	That is not in the true democratic spirit of the way in which we like to run this country. As the noble Baroness knows well, in Wales there are all kinds of authorities—the Assembly, its various sub-groups, its committees, and the local authorities, who will presumably be involved in this at various stages and times.
	I shall withdraw my objection now and I will study the matter further, but the noble Baroness and her Bill team need to have another look at this issue with a critical eye to give the people of Wales and myself, among others, confidence that personal data cannot be bandied about as government departments think fit. I shall withdraw my amendment today, but I will almost certainly return to this issue.

Lord Elton: There is no amendment to withdraw; we are debating clause stand part, so I feel that I can continue without objection. I say to the Minister that, when she sends out the powerfully convincing document that she will need to head off difficulty later on, it would be helpful if she explained what is meant in the Bill by "a devolved authority", because it calls up to the lay reader an amorphous body of people with a Parliament and an Administration. Presumably somewhere there will be a definition clause that says who within the devolved authority is entitled to have the information, otherwise my noble friend and I will not be at all reassured by anything else that she says.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: According to the page that I am on, the devolved authorities that we are talking about are the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers. I am getting a nod from the Box.

Lord Elton: That means the equivalent of the Secretary of State in a devolved authority. Is his or her power to transfer the data further similarly limited, or is it out of the bag once the information is given to them?

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I do not think that it is out of the bag; I think that it stays with the Welsh and Scottish Ministers. I will have to clarify that.

Clause 72 agreed to.
	Clauses 73 to 76 agreed to.
	Clause 77 [Independent educational institutions]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 77 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Morris of Bolton: This group of amendments and clause stand parts looks dauntingly large, but I will keep my comments as succinct as possible. I will speak to the group as a whole, because the real issue is that Part 4 as it stands diminishes the value of the Bill. I will not be moving our amendments among Amendments Nos. 214 to 225 and 233 to 235.
	Since we raised these issues at Second Reading, the Minister has taken great care and a good deal of time to look again at the Government's proposals, for which I am enormously grateful. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is, too, and I thank her for supporting these amendments. I hope that we will all be able to reach an agreement that is satisfactory.
	The first issue is the registration of independent schools. The Bill would transfer the registration of such schools from the DCSF to Ofsted. The logic and thinking behind that proposal do not seem to match up to any real need for such change. The Bill was published before the consultation process was complete and much of the consultation seemed to be based on misunderstanding. The streamlining of this operation presumed that Ofsted already played a major part in the life of independent schools, yet it inspects only two out of every 10 such schools. The Independent Schools Inspectorate will continue to inspect schools that are members of the Independent Schools Council, an umbrella organisation for nearly 1,300 schools that educate about 80 per cent of pupils in independent schools in England, but Ofsted, rather than the Secretary of State, will, under the Bill, become responsible for regulating the whole independent sector.
	The current position is that regulation and inspection are separate. This position should be maintained, as it prevents an inspector from taking a regulatory decision that may be based on a flawed inspection. As the system stands, the responsibility for the regulation of independent schools rests with the Secretary of State, who is, of course, directly answerable to Parliament. The proposals were not sought by any of the parties involved; they seek to solve a problem that does not exist and they will add only confusion and disruption to a system that works very well.
	The second issue relates to Section 347 schools, which deal with pupils with special educational needs. The Bill will change the existing regime, whereby the Secretary of State approves Section 347 schools, to one with increased local authority involvement. However well intentioned these proposals, I am concerned that in practice they may have a detrimental effect on the provision of education for children with special needs. First, if approval is to be replaced by de facto approval by local authorities, there is a risk that the local authorities, with so many other responsibilities and demands on their budgets and attention, will simply lack the resources to carry out effective assessment of the school, as well as the suitability of the individual placement. Secondly, this extra duty to inspect schools may end up making extra demands of schools that will adversely affect their independence and increase the costs of compliance.
	If the abolition of approved status is allowed to go through, special schools will lose their hard-won kitemark of approval. As a result, if parents are forced to appeal because they cannot get funded placements for their child from the local education authority, the local authority may be able to cast doubt on the school's ability to meet needs appropriately. The school will no longer be able to point to its departmental approval status. The upshot is that even fewer parents will have any chance of getting a place for a child with special needs. I fear that this is another area where government intervention will end up being counterproductive to the original intention.
	Finally, I should be most grateful if the Minister could clarify why the Government have chosen to define independent educational institutions so narrowly under Clause 77 so that an institution that provides part-time education for one or more pupils is caught. I recognise that the Government must be able to set certain standards and therefore be able to define who must meet them; that is in all our interests. The Minister must recognise, however, that there are some instances in which detailed government regulation is an unnecessarily intrusive burden.
	We have a number of questions on which I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us. Does the home schooling of this year's 14 year-old Wimbledon star, Laura Robson, which enables her to concentrate on her tennis training, merit the same treatment as an independent school? What exactly is the position on including lunchtimes and religious worship as time spent in education for the purposes of Clause 77(2)?
	I have tried to summarise the main points of contention that we have with Part 4 as succinctly as possible, without dealing too fleetingly with the issues. I have tried to avoid going into too much detail on all the provisions that it contains, because the Minister knows that we have problems with the totality. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has listened to our concerns with understanding since Second Reading and I know that he has been looking closely at Part 4.
	The OECD recognises that our independent education sector provides the best education in the world. There is currently an excellent working relationship between the sector and the department. The Minister has done much to break down the barriers between independent and state schools, so I hope that he accepts my criticisms as constructive, for that is how they are intended, and can accept whatever help we are able to give on restructuring this part of the Bill.

Baroness Walmsley: Would the Minister like to speak to his amendments in the group before I make my contribution?

Lord Adonis: I have given a good deal of attention to Part 4 following the concerns raised by the Independent Schools Council and by your Lordships, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, with whom I have been in frequent communication on this subject.
	Much of Part 4 is non-contentious, but three concerns have been raised: first, the proposed transfer of the registration and regulation of independent schools from my department to Ofsted; secondly, the proposed new statutory standard relating to leadership and management; and, thirdly, the proposed repeal of Section 347 of the Education Act 1996. Having considered these three concerns, I believe that I can meet them all to the satisfaction of the Independent Schools Council and also, I hope, to the satisfaction of the Committee. Let me take them in turn.
	First, on the registration and regulation of independent schools, having taken a long, hard look at the best estimates that we have of the cost savings from the proposed transfer of functions to Ofsted and balanced those against the potential disruption to the sector that would be caused by the transfer, I have concluded that the case for change is not compelling. Moreover, the role of my department in relation to independent schools carries confidence, which for a regulator is a precious commodity not to be squandered lightly. I shall therefore bring back amendments on Report to Part 4 to require the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to continue to maintain the register of independent educational institutions. My department will also continue to approve non-maintained special schools under Section 342 of the Education Act 1996.
	Secondly, I turn to the proposed introduction for independent schools, through Clause 79, of a statutory standard for leadership and management. Having spoken to the Independent Schools Council and the Independent Schools Inspectorate about this, we have agreed that the detailed standards which will be set out in regulations will be modelled on the Independent Schools Inspectorate's own inspection framework. The ISC has confirmed to me that it would be content with a regulation drafted in that way—and I believe that that meets the second concern.
	Thirdly, on the repeal of Section 347 of the Education Act 1996, the section provides for independent schools to be approved by the Secretary of State for the placement by local authorities of children with special educational needs. When an independent school is not so approved, the local authority must seek consent from the Secretary of State to place a child with special educational needs in that school. When the legislation was enacted, it was intended as a means of protecting the most vulnerable children with special educational needs. The introduction of the independent school standards in 2003, which all independent schools have to meet, has seen a marked improvement in the standards that apply across the board in the independent school sector. Indeed, the standards against which all independent schools are judged are now at least as robust as those set out for approved schools.
	The requirement to seek approval, which marks out this separate category of schools, is therefore an unnecessary legal and bureaucratic hurdle, which fulfils no function in providing additional safeguards for children with SEN over and above that provided by Ofsted inspection. Similarly, the requirement for a local authority to seek consent from the Secretary of State to place a child with a statement of SEN in a non-approved independent school is an unnecessary administrative burden. In the past financial year, 772 requests were received for consent from the Secretary of State to place pupils in non-approved independent schools; over 90 per cent of requests for consent were granted.
	The existing system is overly bureaucratic. We estimate that removing the requirement for authorities to seek consent will save more than £120,000 per year and it will also help parents wishing to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal by removing the need for them to obtain enabling consent from my department before their appeal can even be heard by the tribunal, as is the case at the moment. However, I completely understand the concern that, in removing this bureaucratic procedure, we should not introduce new red tape in the provision of information to local authorities and parents about the SEN status of independent schools. I know that has been a concern, but there are a number of ways in which we will ensure that it does not happen.
	After the repeal of Section 347, local authorities will remain under a duty to inform parents with information about non-maintained special schools. At present, this duty also requires them to inform parents about the SEN suitability of schools approved under Section 347. In future, the duty will extend to all independent schools that cater wholly or mainly for pupils with SEN. That constitutes a duty to inform parents about an additional 343 schools.
	The list of these schools is maintained centrally and we will ensure that it is made readily and widely available either through the Ofsted or TeacherNet websites. In future, this information will be even more relevant because Ofsted inspections are moving from a six-yearly to a three-yearly cycle in respect of independent schools wholly or mainly for pupils with special educational needs. We are also exploring the possibility of including in the list a summary of the judgments made at each school's last inspection for ease of reference on the part of parents and local authorities. As a minimum, we will seek to ensure that the list includes a hyperlink to the latest Ofsted or other inspectorate report on a school, although I hope that we can do better than that. On that basis, I am confident that it is in the public interest to remove the requirement for a separate category of independent school and for local authorities to seek consent for a child to be placed in an independent school catering for children with special educational needs.
	I will also say a word about Clause 91. Clause 91 allows regulations to be made to set out the criteria for the approval and withdrawal of approval from independent inspectorates. We consulted on the criteria to be set under these regulations in January 2008 and the consultation response setting out the action that we propose to take on most criteria has been posted on my department's website today. The consultation responses were inconclusive, particularly on the issue of public confidence and also raised further questions about the composition of the inspectorial workforce. As a consequence, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families tabled a Written Ministerial Statement this morning announcing that we will launch a limited supplementary consultation on the criteria to be set under this clause. That also responds in part to concerns that were raised by the Opposition in another place and I welcome any views that noble Lords may have about the proposed criteria.
	I now turn to government Amendments Nos. 219A, 223A, 223B and 223C, which are part of this group. Amendments Nos. 219A and 223A address concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The committee expressed concern about the apparent lack of safeguards on the face of the Bill in relation to the chief inspector's powers to enter and inspect independent educational institutions and take copies of records, particularly material subject to legal professional privilege. The amendments that I will move in this group provide protection for documents subject to legal professional privilege, as well as those that fall within the categories of "excluded material" and "special procedure material". Those latter types of material are recognised elsewhere in legislation as types of material that should be protected.
	Government Amendments Nos. 223B and 223Cto Clause 97 are designed to ensure that the Government's policy in relation to the setting of inspection fees stated in the impact assessment and the policy statement accompanying our memorandum on delegated powers can be implemented. The clause and amendments will allow inspection fees to be paid annually and in advance of inspections carried out by the chief inspector. I commend these amendments to the Committee and hope that the other changes that I have announced meet the concerns expressed by the Committee about the proper treatment of independent schools in the Bill.
	In respect of the noble Baroness's questions about the definition of part-time educational providers—

Baroness Morris of Bolton: Perhaps the Minister could write to me about those issues.

Lord Adonis: I will happily do so, although I have dealt with the substance of her points.

Baroness Walmsley: I was right to postpone my comments because it was clear that the Minister had made some important decisions and that there was no need for me to add my voice of persuasion to the eloquent introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton. Those on these Benches very much welcome the Government's change of heart. We particularly welcome the fact that parents and local authorities will get more information and that some of the bureaucracy will be taken away without doing things that were unnecessary and, from what the Minister said, would not have saved much money anyway but which could have been quite deleterious to the whole system of independent special schools.
	I have one question for the Minister. The list that will be produced either through Teachernet or Ofsted will be refreshed for every school every three years when there has been an inspection and there is information to add. Will that be adequate for local authorities so that they will not need to make any further inquiries that might impose a burden on schools? Will local authorities consider that list to be fresh enough with the information that it provides about the special ability of schools to deal with certain children from their area?

Lord Adonis: It aims to give them the information that is available through the conferring of approved status, but it may well be appropriate for local authorities to make further inquiries, and possibly visit, to judge whether the school is suitable to meet the needs of the child in question. However, that applies at the moment in respect of Section 347 schools, so there is no change in that respect.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for that response. A visit to ensure that the school is appropriate is desirable and will clearly not add an additional burden. I am very content with the concessions that he has made. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, for her powers of persuasion. The Minister knows that we were as one on these issues from the beginning.

Lord Elton: I share the welcome that my noble friend gave to the noble Lord's proposals. However, I have a procedural point in mind. If, as I understand may be the case, the noble Lord will bring in a fairly substantial amount of letter-press, as it were, to insert in the Bill, he will realise that it will not have had Committee stage scrutiny. If it is fairly large, we may need a procedural device, such as a recommitment, to look at the detail of what he proposes, which will not have been seen before. He might like to bear that in mind between now and October.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My understanding is that a lot of what the Government will bring forward will simply constitute a deletion of the existing part. I congratulate the Minister on his triumph of common sense and thank him for what he has done.

Lord Lucas: I echo that sentiment. This is a thoroughly good set of decisions. The noble Lord said that some 770 applications were made last year, and that 90 per cent were accepted. Why did the department turn down the others?

Lord Adonis: Because they were not suitable. However, I shall seek to provide the noble Lord with more refined information, if I can.

Lord Elton: If it is a matter of deletion and there is no question of recommital, I shall be even happier than I was previously.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister. I now realise that I spoke so succinctly that I completely omitted to mention leadership and management. However, I need not have worried as he is brilliant at answering my concerns and non-questions. I am very grateful to him for recognising the standard of leadership and management in the independent sector. I am delighted that the registration of independent schools will stay with the Secretary of State. I am enormously grateful to the Minister for his hard work in this area. He and the Secretary of State will have won the gratitude of the entire independent sector for their willingness to listen. I fully accept, and am greatly reassured by, his comments on Section 347 schools. I thank him again for persisting with a matter which, if not addressed, would have altered the dynamics of a relationship that works well. That can only be good for all the children in this country.

Clause 77 agreed to.
	Clause 78 agreed to.
	Clause 79 [Independent educational institution standards]:
	[Amendments Nos. 213A to 214A not moved.]
	Clause 79 agreed to.
	Clause 80 [The register]:
	[Amendments Nos. 215 to 218 not moved.]
	Clause 80 agreed to.
	Clause 81 [Unregistered independent educational institutions: offence]:
	[Amendment No. 219 not moved.]
	Clause 81 agreed to.
	Clause 82 [Unregistered independent educational institutions: inspection]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 219A:
	Clause 82, page 50, line 32, at end insert—
	"( ) This section does not confer power to inspect or take copies of anything of a kind specified in section 9(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (legally privileged material etc)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 83 to 85 agreed to.
	Clause 86 ["Material change"]:
	[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]
	Clause 86 agreed to.
	Clause 87 agreed to.
	Clause 88 [Inspection and report where applications made for approval]:
	[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]
	Clause 88 agreed to.
	Clause 89 [Determination of applications for approval]:
	[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]
	Clause 89 agreed to.
	Clauses 90 to 92 agreed to.
	Clause 93 [Duty to inspect certain registered institutions at prescribed intervals]:
	[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
	Clause 93 agreed to.
	Clauses 94 and 95 agreed to.
	Clause 96 [Inspections under this Chapter: power of entry etc]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 223A:
	Clause 96, page 56, line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) This section does not confer power to inspect or take copies of anything of a kind specified in section 9(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (legally privileged material etc)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 97 [Fees for inspection by Chief Inspector under this Chapter]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 223B and 223C:
	Clause 97, page 56, line 32, leave out "or times"
	Clause 97, page 56, line 33, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
	"(2A) Regulations under this section may make provision—
	(a) for determining the amount of a fee by reference to circumstances obtaining at a time before the inspection to which it relates takes place;(b) requiring two or more fees to be paid in respect of an inspection under section 93 (inspections at prescribed intervals);(c) requiring a fee to be paid at a time before the inspection to which it relates takes place;(d) prescribing circumstances in which the amount of a fee may be varied or a fee may be waived;(e) conferring a discretion on the Chief Inspector.
	(2B) The power in subsection (2A)(c)—
	(a) does not include power to make provision requiring a fee in respect of an inspection under section 93 to be paid at any time at which an independent inspectorate is approved in relation to the institution;(b) includes power to make provision as to circumstances in which a fee is not to be refunded (and any requirement to pay a fee is to be unaffected) if the inspection to which it relates does not take place.
	(2C) Without prejudice to section 147(4), regulations under this section may make different provision—
	(a) for inspections of different descriptions of institution, or(b) for inspections carried out for different purposes or in different circumstances."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 98 agreed to.
	Clause 99 [Publication of inspection reports]:
	[Amendment No. 224 not moved.]
	Clause 99 agreed to.
	Clauses 100 to 123 agreed to.
	Clause 124 [Interpretation of Chapter]:
	[Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
	Clause 124 agreed to.
	Clauses 125 and 126 agreed to.
	Clause 127 [Right of sixth-form pupils to opt out of religious worship]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 225A:
	Clause 127, page 70, line 28, leave out from "education" to end of line 29 and insert "—
	(i) in the case of a pupil of sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding, in accordance with the pupil's own wishes, and (ii) in any other case, in accordance with the wishes of the pupil's parent."

Baroness Walmsley: In moving Amendment No. 225A, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. The amendment would ensure that a child could withdraw from religious education on his own say-so if he is of sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding, while keeping the right of his parents to so withdraw him. Amendment No. 225B would allow a child of sufficient maturity, who has become known in common parlance as a "Gillick competent" child, also to withdraw from religious worship. Amendment No. 225C removes the definition of a sixth-form pupil, since the other two amendments would make it unnecessary, and Amendment No. 225D would include pupils at academes in the rights outlined in the earlier amendments.
	I refer your Lordships to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and its correspondence with Ministers on its legislative scrutiny of the Bill. The committee's 19th report, published on 13 May 2008, stated at paragraph 1.40:
	"Clause 127 seeks to amend the Education Act 1996 to allow regulations to be made permitting sixth-form students to opt-out of religious worship and for younger students to be withdrawn from religious worship by their parents in non-maintained special schools. The regulations will also permit a child to be removed from religious education on the request of his or her parents. During the Public Bill Committee, John Hayes MP linked this provision with the clause 2 participation duty, suggesting that the Government's position was ironic. He stated: 'It is the Government's contention that it is okay for someone at the age of 16 to say that they do not want to study religion, but not okay to say that they do not want to study everything else'".
	The report continued:
	"We are pleased to note that the Bill proposes to permit sixth-form pupils to optout of religious worship in non-maintained special schools ... However, we question whether the Bill gives sufficient weight to the rights of a child to freedom of thought, conscience and belief under Article 9 ECHR and to Article 12 of the UNCRC ... We wrote to the Minister to ask about the human rights compatibility of these provisions".
	The committee then referred to its report on what is now the Education and Inspections Act 2006. That report recommended that sixth-formers and younger pupils who are Gillick competent should be able to opt out of religious education and collective worship. Currently sixth-formers do not have to take RE. It is compulsory up to the age of 14 and the Government agreed to allow sixth-formers to opt out of collective worship of their own volition. That was as far as the Government were prepared to go at that time. We accepted that step forward and did not press the Government any further on that occasion. We regarded the Government's concession as a bird in the hand and felt that we should review our position later, if an appropriate occasion were to arise. This Bill is that occasion, since it brings non-maintained special schools into the framework of the previous Bill.
	The JCHR report states at paragraph 1.44:
	"In response, the Minister stated that the intention was to align the position of maintained and non-maintained special schools. Responding to our question as to why the Bill did not go further and follow our earlier recommendation, the Minister stated: 'Currently only pupils above compulsory school age have the right to withdraw from religious worship. Schools must have clear criteria for making arrangements for curriculum matters and to have procedures for making judgements which are not disproportionately burdensome. We do not believe that it is practicable to require schools to conduct the individual assessments which a right to withdraw based on sufficient maturity would require. Such one-to-one assessments may well require professional advice in considering whether children have sufficient maturity, understanding and intelligence to make an informed decision'".
	However, school nurses have to make such assessments every day of the week when asked for contraceptive services by underage girls who do not want their parents to know. While I do not understate the time and care taken over these deliberations, they do not bring schools to a halt.
	I return to the JCHR report at paragraph 1.45. It states:
	"As we have stated in previous reports, provisions which fail to guarantee a child of sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding the right to withdraw from compulsory religious education and collective worship are incompatible with the child's human rights".
	The report continues:
	"Administrative burdens alone do not meet the necessity requirement for interference with the rights of children to respect for their Article 9 ECHR rights. We therefore recommend that the Government reconsiders its objection to permitting a child of sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding to withdraw from religious education and takes into account our previously expressed views on this issue".
	That is what Amendment No. 225A does. The committee goes on to say:
	"As for religious worship, we recommend that children who are not in the sixth-form but who have sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding be permitted to withdraw".
	It then suggests how that could be simply remedied in the Bill and, indeed, that is what Amendment No. 225B does.
	The Government's response to this appears in the JCHR's 23rd report, of 26 June of this year. It quotes from a letter from the honourable Jim Knight MP, Minister of State for Schools and Learners in the Department for Children, Schools and Families. After restating the Government's position, the Minister said:
	"There is a proper distinction to be drawn between participation in collective (religious) worship and attendance at religious education lessons on the grounds of the nature of those activities. We do not believe that teaching children about religion in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner in religious education lessons (especially where, as here, there is a parental right of withdrawal from RE) is a breach of their human rights".
	Thereby hangs the problem. If all RE lessons were of the kind described by the Minister in his letter, we would probably not be speaking to these amendments today, but they are not. In many schools, they are mainly or even fully directed at one particular religion, and, instead of teaching about religion, they teach that the religion in question is the one true religion.
	We fully uphold the right of all faiths to teach their religion to willing children but that is not the role of RE lessons. That should be done at another time, and possibly in another place, with the full co-operation of all of us. I also believe that the right sort of RE lessons are a very good thing, particularly in the light of our need for social cohesion and schools' duties in that regard.
	Perhaps I may be clear about what I would like to see. I should like to see five things. First, pupils should all take RE up to the age of 14, as now. Secondly, the curriculum should teach about a range of world religions and belief systems. Thirdly, there would be no parental opt-out from this course, as there would be no more need for it than an opt-out from any other academic subject considered necessary for a child's understanding of the world that he lives in. Fourthly, in consideration that in a Christian country schools may feel it appropriate to teach more about the dominant religion, no more than half the time should be spent on teaching about any particular religion. In a predominantly Muslim school, half the timetable for RE might well be devoted to teaching about Islam, but the other half should be spent teaching about other religions. Fifthly, Ofsted would have to inspect against the curriculum and timescales that I have outlined.
	However, in the light of the fact that we do not currently have the situation that I have just outlined, I feel it necessary to support the JCHR's recommendations. If the five-point plan that I have outlined were in place, I do not think that the JCHR would believe it necessary to call for any opt-outs from RE. Collective worship, of course, is a different matter.
	I hope that I have made it clear that we are not anti-religion, nor against the teaching in schools about the religions of the world, even with an emphasis on the religion chosen by the school. I hope that my five-point plan makes that very clear. However, we believe that many schools are not teaching about religion in this way and therefore we have found it necessary to table this amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I am afraid that I cannot support the noble Baroness's amendment. Our education system is based on the principle that parents have the responsibility to make decisions for their children until those children reach the age of 16. It is they who decide what sort of school their children go to; it is also they who may take the decision, if they deem it necessary, to allow their children to opt out of religious education or worship. I see no reason to overturn that principle. To say that some children are mature and capable enough before they are 16 to make a decision on matters of conscience may very well be true, but I am worried about how such a decision would be arrived at in practice. Who would judge the child to be so mature and capable, and who would guarantee that the decision to opt out was based on considered matters of conscience and belief and not a mischievous attempt to avoid certain classes or acts of worship?

Lord Elton: I share my noble friend's discontent with these amendments. I do so, in part, as a former teacher. I am picturing the extreme difficulty of having a class of children, all roughly the same age, and determining that some of them need not come to school assembly and others might. First, that would be an extraordinarily difficult choice to make. Secondly, it would be extraordinarily difficult to know how to communicate it, particularly to those who were denied the luxury of opting out, as they would see it. Thirdly, the ability to opt out would clearly be regarded as a terrific prize; those who opted out would therefore be setting the norm for the rest, so that opt-out would eventually become what everybody did as soon as they were able. This must be thought through a great deal more. At the moment, however, I cannot give it any sympathy.
	I recognise that Article 12.1 of the UNCRC says that the views of children should be given weight according to the age and maturity. That does not mean, however, that the weight should be such that the normal procedure of the school should be changed in this way. As to the noble Baroness's little expedition into the future of religious education, it deserves much closer study but is not a suitable matter for incorporation into this legislation.

Lord Adonis: The provision for a daily act of collective worship in schools dates back to 1944. All pupils must take part unless withdrawn by parents. In 2006, after much discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and other noble Lords, we introduced an amendment to allow post-compulsory school-age children in maintained schools to opt out of collective worship without the need for the consent of their parents. She welcomed that change at the time. These amendments, however, would extend our proposed right for sixth-formers to withdraw to all competent pupils and would allow them to opt out of religious education as well as collective worship. This is a step too far. We had a long debate on this issue on 17 October 2006 during the passage of the Education and Inspections Act. The Government's position has not changed since then.
	On the Gillick competence principle, I said then and repeat now that, while Gillick competence is a relevant consideration, competence does not necessarily arise all at once, nor does each pupil become competent at the same time. Different people develop at different rates. The noble Baroness recognised this in her remarks, but the need to balance the Gillick competence test with the need to deliver a practicable and workable solution for schools, so that they can function effectively, requires the maintenance of the status quo.
	Assemblies and collective worship are important elements of school life in establishing their ethos and collective character. It is therefore right that those under 16 continue to be required to take part unless their parents specifically wish otherwise, and the arrangements described by the noble Baroness would simply not be practical in a school setting. The status quo strikes the right balance, and we do not intend to propose further changes.
	Religious education is a distinctly different issue relating to the curriculum in schools, as the noble Baroness recognised. I notice that she was not against compulsory religious education in schools in principle; her issue was with the content of that religious education and the extent of the age range across which it was compulsory. It is appropriate for schools to impose reasonable curriculum requirements across their age range, including in religious education. Apropos her remarks, I simply note that there is now a non-statutory national framework for religious education which seeks to ensure that it constitutes a broad and balanced understanding of religion. More local standing advisory councils on religious education are now adopting syllabuses based on the framework. We welcome that development, but there is currently no case for changing the law.

Lord Elton: It occurs to me that the noble Baroness has not alluded to the fact that she is taking from parents the decision at which point the child should be released from their supervision in this respect. She has mentioned nothing about what parents will think about suddenly finding their 14 and a half year-old child taking this little bit of his life into his own hands.

Baroness Walmsley: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply and for everyone who has commented. If my amendments did somehow find their way into the legislation I would not expect there to be large numbers of children seeking permission to opt out. If it meant a serious discussion with the vicar, priest or head teacher about deep issues of religion, philosophy, and so on, and the child being seriously questioned about what he or she thought and why, I do not think that too many children would want to go through that unless they seriously felt that they wanted to opt out. I cannot see it resulting in a mass opt-out.
	Assembly is fairly easily dealt with. The religious element could be done at the end, and the other children could do something else or go straight to their next class. Many schools do not do collective worship in any case. They vote with their feet. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, my five-point plan was there to explain my position on the amendments, rather than an expectation of how parents would consider them. I must clarify—the Minister understood this—that I am not against religious education. I feel that the role of teaching that any religion is the one true one should not be done in the classroom; that should be done separately.
	It is important for social cohesion for all children to know that Christians do not have horns, and nor do Muslims or Hindus, but that we are all people. Learning about what different people believe and how it affects their culture is a very good thing for all children.
	On the question of when parents lose control of their children, I have carefully kept in the parental opt-out, so that parents have the opportunity of opting out the child. However, if the parents did not feel inclined to do that, Gillick-competent children should have that right. Clearly, I am reflecting the comments of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	I am disappointed that the Minister has not felt able to move any further forward as the time has now come to look again at the matter, which is why I have raised it. I will read his remarks with great care, but I may want to return to this on Report. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 225B and 225C not moved.]
	Clause 127 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 225D not moved.]
	Clauses 128 and 129 agreed to.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: moved Amendment No. 226:
	After Clause 129, insert the following new Clause—
	"Restrictions on special school closures
	(1) No special school shall be closed by a local authority without the consent of the Secretary of State.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall only consent to the closure of a special school if there are places at nearby special schools in sufficient number and of sufficient quality adequately to replace the places at the closed school."

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I am very encouraged by the debate that was sparked last Thursday by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Elton and I hope that that spirit will continue in response to my amendment.
	It is Conservative Party policy to have a moratorium on the closure of special schools but I do not think that this should be an issue that divides us on party lines. As we have debated the main issues of the Bill it has become very apparent that one of the key problems affecting participation rates in schools is the failure to engage in education. One of the core reasons for that, as we discussed on Thursday and before, is that some of those children with special educational needs are slipping through the net. The results of that are disastrous and spread much wider than the individual concerned. As my noble friend Lord Elton said last week, some 20 to 30 per cent of offenders have learning difficulties or learning disabilities. I recognise the Minister's commitment to this area, but whatever we are doing at the moment to help children with special needs, it is not enough. I do not think that a policy in favour of inclusion of SEN children in mainstream schools is always appropriate. Parents need a proper choice of the most appropriate education for their child's needs. If mainstream education is suitable, it is right that the child should be educated there, but if a special school would most benefit the child, parents should not be denied that option. This comes down to giving as much choice to parents as we can to allow them access, if they need and want it, to the school that is best suited to the needs of their child. It is plain that that will not be possible if special schools continue to close. If such a school must close, my amendment suggests that the Secretary of State must have ascertained that there are sufficient equivalent places available nearby. I urge the Minister to consider this amendment in the light of what we are all trying to achieve with the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Elton: I support my noble friend. I suggest to her that if this amendment is smiled upon, at a later stage specialisms should be included as well as number and quality because a lot of special schools have great strengths in particular special needs. That needs to be reflected in the amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, said. Most special schools do a fantastic job. They are staffed by highly competent, professional, caring people and are wonderful and inspiring places. However, I do not agree with the noble Baroness's solution. I am not in favour of a moratorium because local authorities need to be free to make their own decisions about the right provision in their area without having to have recourse to the Secretary of State.
	In addition, subsection (2) suggests that consent should be given only if there are places at,
	"nearby special schools in sufficient number and of sufficient quality adequately to replace the places at the closed school".
	It could be that the local authority has made such good provision in the mainstream with the support that the children need or in special units within mainstream schools to make it unnecessary to have every single one of those places available at another special school. The noble Baroness's amendment would cut out the possibility of the mainstream coming up to scratch for children with special needs. That is the second reason why I cannot support this amendment.
	Many children with special needs are failed in mainstream schools, and I am as concerned as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, about that. However, many mainstream schools make good quality provision where young people with special needs are well looked after and their needs are met. I fear that this amendment takes away the possibility of that being the alternative provision.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support this amendment. I have visited a number of special schools for children with special educational needs, and it was clear that there is a need for sufficient schools of this type around the country so that there is some choice for those who need this individual form of treatment. I do not see any signs of a diminishment of the need for these children to have that form of education. Under those circumstances, we should for the moment keep what we have got. I do not think we have the right answer yet, but the time for that will perhaps come a bit later when we are clearer about the future.

Lord Adonis: We had this debate on the Education and Inspections Bill, and I will say now what I said then. As Minister for special educational needs, I am a strong supporter of special schools and the right of parents to choose them for their children, where they can best serve their needs.
	We believe that the precise pattern of school provision should be decided locally, but within a framework set nationally. That is the position in the law at the moment. In particular, we have introduced a new special educational needs improvement test—a new requirement on local authorities and other proposers to demonstrate, when proposing reorganisation of SEN provision locally, that alternative arrangements will lead to improvements in the equality and range of SEN provision.
	Guidance on closing a maintained school accordingly states that when considering any reorganisation of SEN, including that which might lead to some children being displaced through closures or alterations, local authorities and all other proposers for new schools or new provisions will need to demonstrate to parents, local communities and decision-makers how the proposed alternative arrangements are likely to lead to improvements in the standards, quality and/or range of educational provision for children with special needs.
	The guidance on the SEN improvement test also outlines the key factors that local authorities must take into account when planning changes to their existing SEN provision. They must identify the details of the specific educational benefits that will flow from the proposal in terms of improved access to educational and associated services, improved access to specialist staff and improved supply of staff. Local authorities should offer the opportunity for all providers of existing provision to set out their views on the changing pattern of provision. They should state clearly arrangements for alternative provision. The guidance makes it very clear that local authorities cannot arbitrarily close special schools. They must demonstrate that suitable—and, indeed, as an improvement test, better—provision is available as part of their plans. The guidance on the SEN improvement test makes it clear that:
	"A 'hope' or 'intention' to find places elsewhere is not acceptable".
	Within the wider provision of special educational needs, special schools therefore have an incredibly important part to play in meeting the particular needs of some children. I want to make it clear once again that we support special schools strongly, including where it really matters: investment. We are investing £608 million in 76 local authorities not yet involved in Building Schools for the Future which, among other things, can be used to improve facilities for young people with special educational needs.
	In conclusion, I note that the number of pupils in special schools has increased over the past two years, so they are clearly thriving under the present regime

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I make no apologies for bringing the matter back again, because it is a most important issue. I thank my noble friend Lord Elton and will consider his comments.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that many children with special needs are very well served in mainstream education, but all children and parents should have as much choice as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, said that we do not have the right answer yet, and I agree. I take on board what the Minister said and thank him for his response, which I will read carefully. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 130 to 132 agreed to.
	Clause 133 [Powers of National Assembly for Wales]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 133 shall stand part of the Bill.

Lord Glentoran: We come once again to a Welsh element of the Bill and something that we are getting quite used to doing but have not got round to dealing with very well—what are known as framework powers. Chapter 1 of Part 5 produces framework powers for the National Assembly for Wales. The problem that we have with framework powers—and I use the word we because the Wales Office and the opposition Wales Office are working together on a lot of these things—is to ensure that they get adequate scrutiny in Westminster and to ensure, which we have not done yet, that the Welsh National Assembly has the competence to use the framework of the framework powers devolved to it.
	Once again I have a number of questions for the Minister. How many independent schools in Wales will be covered by the clause? Will the changes involve setting up a separate inspectorate for independent schools or enlarging Estyn? What estimate has the Minister made of the additional costs of these changes, and what provisions are there in the Welsh budget to cover these costs? Will she clarify whether powers are being devolved to Estyn, Welsh Ministers, the Welsh Assembly, or perhaps all three?
	Once again, we are being asked to produce framework powers when there is still consultation in this area. With these powers, it will be possible to create new criminal offences. Is there a list of the criminal offences that it is anticipated will be created under this proposal? These are the sorts of questions that we need answers to, and the sort of scrutiny that needs to be given to this type of legislation.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: It is with great pleasure—for me, anyway—that we return to a debate about framework powers. I am almost starting to feel at home, getting closer to Wales every day.
	As the noble Lord is well aware, the UK Government's White Paper, Better Governance for Wales, which was published in June 2005, confirmed that,
	"the Government intends for the future to draft Parliamentary Bills in a way which gives the Assembly wider and more permissive powers to determine the detail of how the provisions should be implemented in Wales".
	Framework powers of this kind were included, as we know, in the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and the NHS Redress Act 2006. This approach recognised that delegating legislative powers to an elected National Assembly for Wales was different from delegating to a Minister, and gave the National Assembly for Wales more discretion to implement Wales-specific policies. We are talking about the difference between delegating to an elected Welsh Assembly the power to make its own measures under the Government of Wales Act and delegating to an Executive. I think I am right on that—I am getting nods from my officials. The framework clauses are therefore about giving the Welsh Assembly the legislative authority to create made-in-Wales laws. I know that the noble Lord is well aware of that, so I hope he will forgive me for labouring that point.
	The new clause will provide the National Assembly with the legislative competence to take forward its policies in the identified areas at the appropriate time and in the light of specific needs and circumstances in Wales. There are two new framework powers in Clause 133. The first is the regulation of independent schools in Wales. This will enable the National Assembly for Wales, by way of Assembly measures, to define the arrangements for the registration of independent schools, including rights of appeal, and to define and regulate the conduct of an independent school both in its educational provision and in its more general provision for pupils' welfare. In light of the possible changes to Part 4 concerning independent educational institutions outlined by my noble friend, we will have to consider whether any consequential amendments are required to this framework power. If there are, we will bring them back on Report.
	The second framework power concerns the inspection of the education and training of those aged 16 and under. This will include the inspection of independent schools, and will enable the National Assembly for Wales, by way of the Assembly measures that we talk about so much, to make provision for the inspection of education and training in maintained schools and in other settings, such as in the case of children with illnesses who cannot attend school. It would also allow the National Assembly for Wales to determine the inspection regime for the 60 to 70 independent schools in Wales. I am reminded that any Assembly measures brought forward will be subject to full consultation. It is proposed that the two new framework powers will be facilitated by introducing a new framework power in respect of the regulation of independent schools and in amending matter 5.15 so that it will encompass the inspection of education and training for those aged 16 and under. It amends a competency that already exists.
	The policy areas of the proposed framework powers have been devolved and the functions conferred upon the Welsh Ministers. Functions are already exercised by the Executive. We are giving them the legislative competency as well so that they can make the laws that go alongside it. As such, there is already a distinctive approach to the inspection of education and training in Wales in relation to pre-16 inspection. For example, Estyn and Ofsted already have different remits, as the noble Lord has highlighted. Responsibility for the inspection of childcare and children's social services taken on board by Ofsted is discharged in Wales by the Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales, with Estyn focusing squarely on education and training.
	At the operational level, inspection in Wales is based on the template provided by the common inspection framework which was developed in consultation with partners in Wales and implemented in 2004. While similarities with England remain, there are already significant differences in the overall approach.
	I hope that I have answered a number of the noble Lord's questions. Of course, any measures that come forward as a result of these framework powers will be subject to scrutiny and consultation by the Welsh Assembly. I believe that it has the competency to do that. The noble Lord asked important questions about cost, provision in the Welsh Assembly budget and what kind of offences might be created. All of that will be defined in the proposed measures and consulted on in Cardiff. The question is whether we should devolve this legislative competence, and I think that we should. This is an area where the Welsh Assembly Government have operated for some time with executive functions, and it is consistent with education being highly devolved. The noble Lord is right to give the Committee an opportunity to scrutinise this. I hope that he will feel able to support the clause.

Lord Elton: On an optimistic note, there is an awful lot of amour propre in national Governments within our United Kingdom. I just hope that if the Welsh find things that they can do better than us, we will learn from them, as we might sometimes learn from the Scots, and not presume that what we do is always best.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: Again, the noble Lord displays great wisdom in these matters.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness for those explanations. We are getting clearer in our communications about these things. As she said, it is important that framework powers should be challenged and examined in detail in your Lordships' House and in the other place, where they do not seem to give it the same priority as we do. But that is their business and not ours.
	I am slightly concerned about the ability to create new criminal offences, which must move us into a different ministerial area, such as the Home Office. To some extent I am repeating myself, but I wonder whether the noble Baroness and her team have given thought to what criminal offences might come out of this and how we will maintain control of it.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: Perhaps I may remind the Committee that we have always been at pains to make it clear in our discussions on framework powers and devolution generally that no list of criminal offences will be subject to the measure. The hour is too late; I cannot remember the exact phrase. I will have to check the detail and write to the noble Lord. At the moment there is no list of criminal offences. This will be subject to the measure and the consultation that I outlined.

[Amendments Nos. 227 and 228 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 133 agreed to.
	Clauses 134 to 136 agreed to.
	Clause 137 [Meaning of "sixth form education" etc]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 228A:
	Clause 137, page 90, line 24, at end insert—
	"(2) In relation to a code for school admissions issued under section 84(1) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c.31) after the passing of this Act, the requirement to consult which is imposed by section 85(2) of that Act may be satisfied by consultation undertaken before the passing of this Act, even though the code takes account (to any extent) of any provision made by this Act."

Lord Adonis: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 231C, 233A, 233AA, 233AB, 238 and 239. Government Amendment No. 228A provides that the requirement to consult on the draft statutory codes relating to school admissions or appeals will be satisfied by consulting on a draft code that refers to provisions in this Bill which are not yet law. This will allow the codes to remain current and relevant, and reduce the overall burden of consultation on audiences such as schools and local authorities.
	Government Amendments Nos. 233A, 233AA and 233AB relate to the commencement of the school admissions provisions in the Bill by Welsh Ministers. The amendments make a slight change to the power of Welsh Ministers to commence paragraph 58 of Schedule 1 so that it is in line with the remainder of their commencement powers, and my noble friend Lady Morgan stands ready to wax eloquent on Welsh provisions if there is a further requirement for explanation.
	Government Amendment No. 231C is a technical amendment that makes the meaning of "prescribed" and "regulations" clearer throughout the Bill. For the avoidance of any doubt, it is better for these terms to be set out in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 238 and 239 refer to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. They ensure that social security information may be shared between the Department for Work and Pensions and a county council where that county council is exercising social security functions in respect of a young person for whom it is required to provide support via the Connexions service under Clause 54. Regulations made under this social security legislation define a local authority by reference to the Social Security Administration Act 1992. This definition of "local authority" does not include a county council of England. Therefore, but for these amendments, the current data sharing would not be able to continue where a county council is exercising its Connexions functions. These are purely technical amendments resulting from the transfer of the Connexions service to local authorities under Clause 54 and enables current practices to continue. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: It is a rather novel approach for the Government to legislate on school admissions first and consult afterwards. While we may be prepared to accept it on this occasion, we hope that it does not become a habit.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I, too, wondered why the consultation could not have been undertaken earlier so that we could have known the result of it before Royal Assent.

Lord Adonis: There is a good reason. By doing it this way, we ensure that the draft code will be able to come into force from September 2010 rather than September 2011, but that is all dependent on noble Lords being prepared to grant these powers.

Lord Elton: I do not quite follow that. The year 2010 is quite a long way off. Obviously I have missed something the noble Lord said.

Lord Adonis: Consulting now on the draft code would be in time for the admissions round which starts in 2010. If we had consulted after the Bill had become law, we would have to wait a year because the cycle of admissions is annual.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 137, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 138 [Power of governing body: educational provision for improving behaviour]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 228AA:
	Clause 138, page 90, line 31, after "pupil" insert "temporarily"

Baroness Walmsley: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 228B. Clause 138 allows school governing bodies to make alternative provision for pupils at another place for the purpose of improving their behaviour. We are concerned that this power might be used disproportionately to get rid of young people whose special needs have not been met and where this has adversely affected their behaviour. That is why we have tabled Amendment No. 228B, which seeks to remove the word "improve" on page 90, line 33, and insert,
	"provide help, support and guidance aimed at improving",
	their behaviour.
	Amendment No. 228AA seeks to insert the word "temporarily" in line 31 to ensure that the powers do not amount to a power permanently to exclude a pupil. We have no objection to a child's needs being met elsewhere for a while if that "elsewhere" can do the job better than the school is doing. We want to avoid PRUs becoming a dumping ground for inconvenient students. We all know that currently a very high proportion of students in PRUs have special needs and that some teachers in some PRUs have tremendous skill in gaining the pupils' confidence and helping them to taste a little success, something with which many of them are not at all familiar.
	Some do a very good job but provision is patchy, hence our emphasis on help, support and guidance. We want this to indicate the need for proper provision for addressing the child's special need. With expert and sensitive help, many of these children can be helped back into mainstream, which is what we should all be aiming for. I beg to move.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I have some concerns about the amendment. The aim of the provision is, quite simply, to improve the behaviour of disruptive and unruly children. Pupils who misbehave in class, who lack discipline and who are disrespectful to their teachers and to other pupils cause disastrous disruption to the learning of their peers. It is essential that head teachers and the governors of a school are able to instil discipline and enforce their rules.
	In undertaking this task, I am sure that they provide help, support and guidance. With Amendment No. 228B, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, seeks to insert words which would have no discernable practical effect but would, none the less, water down the intention of the provision. For the sake of morale among teachers and fellow pupils alike we must avoid the temptation to micromanage what head teachers and governing bodies do and allow them to proceed in a way that they think is best in their schools.

Lord Lucas: This seems an interesting alternative to exclusion. Now you do not have to go through the whole difficult process of excluding a child; you just send them off to a PRU with no appeal. Is that how it will work?

Lord Adonis: Amendment No. 228AA seeks to add an explicit reference to referrals to off-site educational provision being for a temporary period and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for raising the point. It has certainly always been our intention that referrals to off-site provision to improve pupils' behaviour should be only for a temporary period. However, it is not explicitly clear that this is the case and I am happy to look into this to see whether it would help to clarify the position further if we made changes to the Bill on Report if appropriate.
	Amendment No. 228B seeks to define further the purpose of educational provision. We do not believe this is necessary. Clause 138 provides that a governing body exercising the power to require a pupil to attend off-site provision must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. It is the intention to issue guidance on the use of the power and illustrative guidance was sent to Members of the Committee on 1 July to show how the power is intended to operate. It states that schools should assure themselves that the off-site provision includes training to manage the pupils' behaviour, and the referring school should outline the type of support the pupil requires when on the placement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, says, the decisions in these matters, having regard to the guidance, should be made by the school.

Lord Elton: Everyone so far has spoken as if the child is automatically going to a PRU and nowhere else, but the Bill specifically provides for a child to be sent otherwise than to a PRU—presumably, therefore, to another school, and if not another school then Clause 139(1)(b) provides for it to be treated as if it was. Where else might children be sent other than to a PRU?

Lord Lucas: In my experience, teachers have lots of ideas about where pupils should be sent.

Lord Adonis: Not all off-site educational provision is in the PRU category. I know that first-hand; I spoke recently to a number of local authorities that claimed not to have PRUs. I was fascinated, because I wondered how they provided for pupils whose behaviour required separate treatment. They have contracted-out or other arrangements with providers which may be able to provide specialist services in this regard, but which do not count as PRUs. My understanding is that that would be covered by these provisions too.

Lord Elton: Could the Minister now, or at a later stage, tell us a bit about how those contracted-out organisations work in comparison to ordinary PRUs? I understand that they were a surprise to him; they are a surprise to me too, and there may be something to learn here.

Lord Adonis: I should be happy to write to the noble Lord setting out examples of the other providers which operate in this area. It may be, as he says, that there is more to learn from them. We recently published a paper on alternative provision and are seeking to take forward a range of pilot programmes for alternative providers which can either manage PRUs better on the current basis or make provision that meets the needs of those pupils better than existing PRUs do.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My experience is that the inventive local authorities have created a whole range of alternative possibilities—not necessarily PRUs at all, in answer to my noble friend's question. Young people are sent off to do various kinds of community service and to join in camping activities, Outward Bound activities and so on. Many of those schemes work well, and I hope we will keep the wording as broad as possible in the Bill to allow for that kind of inventiveness.

Lord Elton: Does this provision allow for a child to be sent to another school with a different specialism as its strength from the one the child is attending? It may simply be that the child needs to be fulfilled in an area where it has talent, rather than being left in a school that does not cater for that.

Lord Adonis: That is absolutely the case. Many children who do not thrive in one school may, perhaps after a period in alternative provision, thrive in a different school. We are seeking to provide strong incentives for schools to take pupils who have been excluded elsewhere, where they believe they have the capacity to meet needs better than they may have been met in the first school.

Lord Elton: Presumably that would not be the function of the sending school, as it were, under these provisions; it would be for the local education authority.

Lord Adonis: That is correct.

Lord Lucas: I am looking at how this provision will be used. It will become an alternative to exclusion to quite a large extent, will it not? My understanding of the way that most pupils end up in PRUs is that they are excluded and then they go there, or to similar provision. This will allow a school to post an unruly pupil to a PRU whenever it decides that is right, without any right of appeal by the pupil so far as I can see. Not that I am disapproving of this; I am just trying to find out what it is. We will have a fast track to PRU or similar provision without going through all the current arrangements that are there for exclusion, appeal, argument and so on.
	The noble Lord said that schools have to have regard to guidance. That is the weaker of the two ways of looking at matters. Presumably it means that schools can override the guidance if they so wish. What ultimate limitations are there on where schools can send pupils? Do they have to send them to a recognised educational establishment or can some retired army colonel set up a boot camp which is considered an appropriate place for sending them? In that case, they would still be at the school that they had been transferred from but would receive behavioural correction in some wild, wet moorland for as long as it took them to behave, as we see on television from time to time. Where are the boundaries under the clause?

Lord Adonis: The noble Lord has made a number of specific points. First, schools must have regard to the guidance which, as the noble Lord knows, is a very strong statement in education law. They take the actual decisions in line with the guidance but the guidance makes it clear that the provision must be appropriate and meet pupils' needs. I would expect a local authority to be hot on the heels of any school that was not taking the guidance seriously if the parents themselves did not do so.
	This is not an unrestricted power. We intend the regulations to require schools to conduct reviews every 30 days for all pupils who are sent off-site. No such requirement attaches to the existing power, under which pupils can be sent off-site for education and training in the secular curriculum of the school.
	As I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we are considering very carefully her point about stating explicitly in the Bill the point that referrals under this clause should be temporary. That would also help meet the point about schools simply seeking to parcel pupils off to alternative provision because they cannot think of anything better and do not have proper regard for their welfare.

Baroness Walmsley: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply and to others who have made very pertinent points. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in particular, pointed out that the provision about appeals does not apply to this kind of removal of the pupil. We worry that although the draft guidance may well be fine, schools sometimes abuse the powers given to them. We saw an opening for possible abuse in this power which is why we want to insert the word "temporarily". I am most grateful to the Minister for saying that he will consider that carefully. We also want to emphasise the fact that the pupil needs support and help rather than banishment to somewhere or other, PRU or not.
	The hour is late so I shall say no more before I withdraw the amendment.

Lord Lucas: Before the noble Baroness does so, let me say that the more we discuss how this will operate in practice, the more it interests me. Presumably parents would retain the right to withdraw a child from school if they disapproved of the posting. If the school had said that the child had to go to boot camp and the parents did not like it, they could just withdraw the child from school. They do not lose control of that process.
	The noble Lord referred to provisions in existing law. I should be most grateful if he could point them out to me. I do not require the answer now but I would love to know so that I can study it before Report.

Lord Adonis: I do not have the detail of where the existing provision is, but I will write to the noble Lord.

Baroness Walmsley: In that case, I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 228B not moved.]

Lord Elton: moved Amendment No. 228C:
	Clause 138, page 90, line 37, after "persons" insert "including the pupil or the prescribed representative or friend of the pupil to whom the requirement applies"

Lord Elton: We are still debating Clause 138, which gives governing bodies the power to require a pupil to attend and receive his education at a place other than the school, and we have discussed at some length what sort of other place that might be. In moving Amendment No. 228C, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 228D, both of which are intended to enable the voice of the child, or pupil, to be heard or represented in the process leading up to such a requirement being made. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has already explicitly directed the attention of the Committee to Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, paragraph 1 of which states:
	"State parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child".
	The Committee will see that new subsection (1B) in Clause 139 has provisions with a somewhat similar intention, involving the pupils' parents. However, an amendment along the lines of mine is needed for four reasons. First, the effect of those provisions is set aside by new subsection (1C) if the place where the child or pupil is required to attend is another school at which he will become a registered pupil. That is what raised my query under the last amendment. Secondly, the last four lines of new subsection (1B) appear to mean that almost all cases will be treated as if they fell under that definition. Thirdly, Clause 138 needs in any case to be more specific. Finally, it is a great deal simpler for the consumer—that is the user of the legislation—if as much as possible of the provisions relating to a requirement can be maintained in a single clause.
	New Section 29A(3)(a) is a welcome mandatory duty for the Secretary of State to decide and rule who shall be given what information relating to the use of this new power in individual cases. Amendment No. 228C simply makes it clear that included among the recipients must be the pupil or someone responsible for or representing him, regardless of what has happened as a result of the next clause. While the effect of the words inserted into the Act by new subsection (1B)(b) in Clause 139 would at first glance make it mandatory to inform the parent, though not, it seems, the pupil—and I hope that the Minister will tell us whether it is intended that the pupil shall be among those informed—this requirement is set aside in what appear the great majority of cases. My Amendment No. 228C would simply put it back in place. I suspect that to be fully effective it will need to be sheltered in some way from the effects of new subsection (1C) by an amendment to that section—and I look to the Minister for guidance on that.
	The second amendment, Amendment No. 228D, is simpler. Subsections (3) and (4) of new Section 29A that the Bill will insert into the 2002 Act provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the use by governing bodies of the power to make requirements which they are to be given by new subsection (1). New subsection (4) is the second tranche of regulation-making powers given to the Secretary of State; sadly, unlike in new subsection (3), the use of them is not mandatory—and we may need to address that later. For the present, I only note that while there is a sensible suggestion that he should require the governing body to invite people of his choice—and again I ask whether that will include the pupil—to participate in the important review of any requirement on a pupil to attend elsewhere after it has been in place for a time, there is no such suggestion regarding the much more important decision to impose it in the first place. That I find extraordinary and this is merely meant to change that situation. I beg to move.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My noble friend's amendment would make it clear that the imposition of educational provisions to improve a pupil's behaviour must consult and inform that pupil. I have sympathy with his eloquent arguments. I certainly see the desirability of keeping a pupil fully informed of decisions being made that directly affect him. If such a pupil is kept aware of what will happen to him, there is probably more chance of him showing willingness to participate.
	However, I sound one note of caution: the process of involving a pupil in such decisions should not be allowed to develop into a veto by the pupil. Consulting him is one thing but, as I said a few moments ago, we must not place undue obstacles in the path of head teachers and governing bodies who must ultimately have the responsibility to maintain acceptable levels of discipline in their schools.

Lord Elton: I reassure my noble friend that there is no element of appeal in what I suggested. It is simply that when the decision is made, the child's views should be heard—I say child because that is in the United Nations convention. When we come to appeals, I have very strong views about not forcing schools to take back children whom they can neither control nor help.

Lord Adonis: I will deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about who needs to be told what. It is not intended that regulations under Clauses 138 and 139 will require that the pupil or his representative be given information relating to the imposition of the requirement to attend off-site provision or be invited to any review. It is normal practice for all communications from a school about a pupil to go to the parents, especially when the issue concerns the pupil's behaviour. That applies across education law. Parents have a responsibility to take part in managing their child's behaviour and that is why it is the parents who are invited to the review. It is very likely that the pupil is made aware of the referral from the school, and virtually inconceivable that they would not be so if they are at an age and capacity where they can understand the reasons for the referral and expected outcomes. The parent—or pupil if aged 18 or over—will be able to participate in any review, which means that they can make representations and express their thoughts, comments or concerns about the placement.
	In the draft guidance we said that a pupil under the age of 18 should be allowed to attend the review and speak on his or her own behalf if he or she wishes to do so. Governing bodies will be required to have regard to the guidance and I expect schools to use their judgment about whether it is appropriate for the pupil to attend the review meeting. That guidance will be subject to formal consultation after the Bill receives Royal Assent, and I am happy to circulate a draft copy to noble Lords now, if that would be helpful and would elucidate some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
	As far as decision-making is concerned, it is not intended that regulations will require the pupil to be part of the decision-making process itself. We expect the governing body to take any comments made by the parent or pupil into consideration when they come to making a decision about whether the off-site education should continue. Governing bodies are bound by law to promote high levels of educational achievement at school and I have confidence that they will be able to come to the right decision when reviewing an off-site referral. I hope that that goes some way to meeting the noble Lord's concerns. On his point about the actual informing of the young person, what is set out in the Bill is within the normal practice of education law.

Lord Lucas: Does a school have the power to fund this placement, or will it have to look to the local authority to fund it?

Lord Adonis: That depends on what this provision means. At the moment, schools fund a good deal of provision for pupils in danger of exclusion or who need separate treatment. I have visited a wide range of in-school units that are now being pioneered by schools, some in conjunction with external partners of the kind that we discussed earlier. What they can fund will depend on the legal status of the provision. If it is part of their own provision, they can fund it. If it is not part of their own provision, the precise nature of the provision will determine whether they or the local authority funds it.

Lord Elton: The noble Lord assures me that the child is always informed, and that he or she is usually heard. I am concerned—no doubt anecdotal evidence on this matter will be given to me in the recess—that in a large school the governing body, which may meet when the pupils are on holiday, will take decisions that are remote from a child. It may not hear from the child although I am sure that the teachers will. However, for the time being, I shall have to accept his reassurance. I hope that I shall continue to be reassured in October. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 228D not moved.]
	Clause 138 agreed to.

Lord Elton: moved Amendment No. 228E:
	After Clause 138, insert the following new Clause—
	"Exclusion process: participation by pupils
	(1) Section 52 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32) (exclusion of pupils) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) The head teacher referred to in subsection (1) and the teacher referred to in subsection (2) shall—
	(a) notify the pupil of the proposed exclusion;(b) provide all information that may be relevant to the representations referred to in paragraph (c) below to that pupil in language capable of being readily understood by or explained to the pupil having particular regard to any special educational needs he may have; (c) provide a sufficient opportunity for the pupil to make representations in relation to his exclusion; and(d) take into consideration any such representations before deciding to put that proposal into effect."
	(3) In subsection (4), after paragraph (d) insert—
	"(e) relating to—(i) the scope and presentation of the information referred to in subsection (2A)(b) of this section;(ii) the minimum time to be allowed for the preparation of the representations referred to in subsection (2A) of this section;(iii) the eligibility of persons to act as representative or friend of a pupil referred to in subsection (1) or (2) of this section; and(iv) the circumstances under which the requirements to notify and to provide information to such a pupil shall be discharged if the notification is made and the information is provided to such a representative or friend.""

Lord Elton: As a sort of hors d'oeuvre I refer the Committee to the foreword of Working Together, which states that the aims of the curriculum recently identified by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority as enabling all young people to become successful learners, confident individuals and responsible citizens can be achieved only if children and young people are actively involved in decisions about their lives.
	A pupil should always participate in such decisions. My next comments are a slight rerun of what I said on the previous amendment. If it were a piece of organ music, it would have several more stops pulled out, because the power to move to a PRU is not as fundamentally destructive of a child's morale and educational career as is a decision to exclude that child from a school altogether.
	I have already quoted Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and I do not propose to do so again, except for the part of paragraph 2 of that article, which states that,
	"the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child"—
	this is such a proceeding—
	"either directly, or through a representative"—
	my amendment provides for representation—
	"or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law".
	My Amendment No. 228E asserts the right of participation—not just the right to be informed, but to be heard—in the process leading up to the far more serious decision to exclude a pupil from the school altogether. I hope that I do not need to emphasise to the Committee the seriousness of such a decision. If the Minister were to tell us the average number of hours of face-to-face teaching that a child excluded from school gets in the first four weeks of exclusion, let alone its full duration, and what they cost, it might serve the purpose. Children who are untaught and unsupervised during school hours have only truants and other excludes for company unless, sadly, they are recruited to work for more adult criminals, as we recently saw in the astonishing case concerning Securicor. That energy and inventiveness have to be applied to something. If they lack legitimate new challenges and excitements, they will soon find themselves in a desert of boredom. Illegitimate thrills range from false fire alarms, taking and driving away or joining a gang in its vendetta to sampling the dreadful excitement of drugs. Once again, I come at this from the perspective of juvenile offending. Any steps that can be taken to avoid a young person being faced with those challenges must be taken.
	The amendment therefore provides that the pupil must be told of any proposal to exclude him, and he must be given all the information that he needs to make his own comments on that. My amendment uses words that I have taken from Participation Works, which is a confederation of the British Youth Council, the Children's Rights Alliance for England, the National Children's Bureau, the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services, Save the Children and the National Youth Agency. They are, I hope, above reproach. The amendment gives the pupil a chance to make representations and requires the teacher concerned to take them into account.
	Proposed new subsection (3) adds to the regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State under the existing four paragraphs of Section 52(4) a further paragraph enabling him to set out the nature of the information that the pupil must have, the time that he can take to think about it before he uses it and the appointment of a representative to act for or a friend to act with him. I note in passing with some apprehension that the regulation-making powers in subsection (4) into which the text of my amendment would be incorporated is permissive only. In my view, the regulations will be needed, and I hope that by agreeing with me in that respect, the Minister will make it unnecessary for me to consider on Report who is to make the use of the new powers in this new provision mandatory.
	I am, of course, making common cause in my amendment with the formidable trio of noble Baronesses, some 66.6 per cent of whom are present on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, who tackle the same issue in their two amendments. We may yet find ourselves moving a combined effort at a later stage. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just pointed out, we have two amendments in this group, which between them do pretty much the same as he has very neatly done in his single amendment. Amendment No. 230A is about representation of pupils and access to information in the school exclusion process. Amendment No. 230B is about the right to appeal and access to advocacy in that process. Permanent exclusions have been reducing in number; however in 2005-06 there were over 9,000 cases of permanent exclusion, and there were 343,840 semi-permanent or fixed temporary exclusions. That is an awful lot, and that was an increase over the previous year.
	Currently, children have no legal right to participate in one of the most significant and possibly damaging decisions affecting them. Although the Government have guidance that says all the right things, it is not enforceable. If the Minister is minded to accept either the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, or our amendments, that situation would be corrected.
	In October 2002, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in relation to Article 12, said that the Government should,
	"ensure that children throughout the State party have the right to be heard before exclusion and have the right to appeal against temporary and permanent exclusion".
	Noble Lords should note the word "right" in both parts of that sentence.
	On Amendment No. 230B, the committee said in the same report that the Government should,
	"ensure that children throughout the State party have the ... right to appeal against temporary and permanent exclusion".
	It is very important that those children should have an advocate to speak for them, if they feel that they need it. An advocate is an independent person assisting the young person to make his or her voice heard. Advocates are able to interpret difficult technical jargon in a way that the child will understand. There are already precedents for this. Children currently have a legal right of access to independent advocacy when they are in care. If a 16 or 17 year-old lacks capacity to consent or protest, but has no one to speak to them, such as a family or friends when decisions about serious medical treatment are being made, they can have an independent advocate under the independent mental capacity advocate scheme. This can also happen when such children wish to make a complaint about the NHS.
	Therefore, we are not suggesting something that has never been done before. It works very well and I know that the Government are convinced of the benefit of advocacy, because it can help to improve the quality of decision making. The cost might worry the Government, so perhaps I can set the Minister's mind at rest. Save the Children estimates that it would cost just £133 per case or £147 in London, where everything is more expensive, to provide advocacy for a child going through an exclusion appeal. This investment may provide very good value for money by keeping more children in mainstream education and improving communication between teachers and children. The Government estimate that a place in a mainstream establishment costs £4,000 a year, whereas a pupil referral unit, where most permanently excluded children go, costs £15,000. Therefore, there could be a considerable saving if the child's point of view was adequately and clearly put on his behalf by an advocate.
	This does not necessarily undermine the head teacher's ability to keep control in his school; it is just a matter of putting the correct situation to the panel of governors who consider it, rather than making any assumptions about what the child feels or has done. It is just a matter of fairness and simple justice. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that if we do not get the answer that we hope for from the Minister, I, too, will be prepared to take this matter further.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I understand the sentiment articulated by my noble friend Lord Elton, which would allow pupils to participate in the exclusion process, because exclusions should be taken very seriously, and it is therefore right that the pupil is treated fairly. Therefore, I support part of the intention behind the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
	I was very pleased during the debate on the previous amendment when my noble friend said that when a child was excluded he strongly agreed that the child should not go back into the school, because there is a wider picture, not just about the children who are excluded, but about the right of the other children in the school to a good education. One of the most important things that we must do if we are to make a success of extending time in education is to engage children when they are young so that they are enthused by learning. To engage them, it is necessary to have an enthusiastic teacher who can devote time and energy to children who may be struggling, and an atmosphere in the classroom which allows learning to take place. Sadly, poor pupil behaviour is the most serious problem preventing teachers doing their job and is one reason why most good teachers leave the profession. Classrooms in which students are disruptive are environments in which no one can learn. Some pupils feel that they can defy teachers with impunity, disrupt the classroom and make it impossible for the whole class to learn.
	In many of the country's schools, pupils cross the boundaries that define good behaviour. If we are to expect teachers to be able to maintain effective discipline, they must be able to resort to an effective deterrent—the threat of expulsion from the school. Yet head teachers frequently express their frustration that they have no ultimate deterrent and pupils do not take exclusions seriously, because excluding pupils on a permanent basis often turns out to be no such thing. Excluded pupils can appeal against the decision and often end up back in school. The right of appeal to an independent appeals panel administered by the local authority can be expensive, time-consuming and stressful for the head teacher. One-in-four appeals are won by the appellant and half of the children return to their original school. It is extremely demoralising for the whole school, for children and teachers, who find themselves unable to punish effectively some students whose behaviour may have been seriously threatening or upsetting. It causes continued disruption to the classroom and contributes to a decline in standards when children who have behaved so badly are allowed to continue with what they were doing, with the added triumph of having defeated the school's authority when an appeal panel overturns a head teacher's decision. I should like to see head teachers being allowed to run their schools effectively and for their rulings on serious disciplinary matters to be respected.

Lord Adonis: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked me how provision for excluded pupils had improved in recent years. I shall supply him in correspondence with the information that we have about the amount being spent in this area, which has improved dramatically. However, I can tell him that in recent years we have made two big changes, which have significantly improved the situation. The first is the requirement for full-time provision for pupils who have been excluded permanently, which did not used to be the case, and that has led to a very big increase in spending in this area. The second is the change that we made in the Education and Inspections Act that required local authorities to provide suitable full-time education for all pupils excluded temporarily from the sixth day of exclusion, as opposed to—I believe, from memory—the 15th day. Again, that has led to a significant increase in the quality and quantity of provision for pupils temporarily excluded. As I said, previously a requirement to provide for those pupils did not kick in until fully three weeks' worth of exclusion had taken place.
	Perhaps I may deal, first, with Amendment No. 230A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. This amendment seeks to give a statutory right of representation and information to pupils of any age in their exclusion proceedings. We are sympathetic to the intentions behind the amendment and have given schools a clear steer in statutory guidance that pupils should feel involved in decisions that affect their future and that they should be heard wherever possible. This includes being consulted and being able to participate in the exclusion process, and we have put in place a series of safeguards to ensure that that takes place.
	All schools are required to have a published discipline and behaviour policy in place setting out the standards of behaviour and sanctions for any breach. The exclusions guidance, to which by law all head teachers, governing bodies and appeal panels must have regard and which sets out in detail advice to head teachers on dealing with exclusions, gives significant weight to children's participation. The guidance encourages head teachers, before excluding pupils, to inform them of the reasons for their exclusion and to inform them of the length of the exclusion, if temporary, or to say whether it is permanent, and it also encourages head teachers to give pupils the opportunity to have their say.
	However, there are circumstances where it may not be possible for head teachers to question pupils and where it is imperative that they are removed immediately from the school site in order to ensure the safety of the other pupils in the school. Where pupil or staff safety is threatened, as, for example, in the case of a pupil carrying a knife or an assault on another person, it may not always be appropriate for the head teacher to speak to the pupil before removal.
	Generally, the guidance encourages pupils to participate at all stages of the exclusion process, where appropriate, and with their parent's permission. I understand that there are concerns relating to the wording "with parent's permission" in the exclusion guidance, where the parent could refuse to allow their child to participate in the exclusion process. In the light of these concerns, we have committed to revise the guidance to remove this restriction. The revised guidance will make it clear that, as long as pupils are of an age where they can understand the process, they should be strongly encouraged to participate alongside their parents. This change will come into effect from this September, as we are currently revising the guidance.
	Amendment No. 230B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, proposes to give pupils of any age a right of appeal and a right to independent representation, possibly through an advocate. Placing new requirements on local authorities to arrange and meet the costs of independent advocates for pupils and parents who wished to make representations would place additional financial and administrative burdens on local authorities, which they would have to meet from within their existing resources. It would not be appropriate to impose this additional burden on them.
	On the aspect of the noble Baroness's amendment that would give pupils of any age the right of appeal, which is also covered in Amendments Nos. 228E and 230A, I note that Scotland and Wales have given pupils under the age of 18 a right of appeal themselves, not simply one exercised by their parents. Scotland did this in primary legislation in 2000, while Wales did so in 2004 in regulations. Both have imposed conditions relating to a pupil's age and understanding. I shall reflect further on the Scottish and Welsh experience over the summer, taking up the injunction of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that we learn from good practice in Scotland and Wales. The Government will consider the case for such a change in England.

Baroness Walmsley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Elton, withdraws the amendment, if that is what he intends to do, perhaps I may first thank the Minister for what he said about amending the guidance, which is a welcome improvement. However, it is still just guidance. The knife issue that he mentioned is pertinent but it could be addressed by an exemption to the legislation on safety grounds that gives the child the right to be heard without penalising all the other children by not giving them the rights that we are asking for. The Minister's comments on the Scottish and Welsh practice are also welcome. I hope that he will enjoy his summer holiday by taking the Scottish and Welsh legislation to the beach with him along with his bucket and spade.

Lord Elton: I had not intended that my amendment should draw us into the murky water of appeals; I share my noble friend's reservations about that. It is a wider subject than I wished to broach tonight. I was enormously encouraged by the Minister's comments on the level of full-time education provision for children excluded from school. I hope that he will be kind enough to drop me a line to amplify what he said about that exceedingly important provision.
	The Minister referred to occasions when it is not possible for a head teacher to parlay with a knife-bearing child. I once had a knife drawn on me in a class, but the situation was resolved amicably after a few moments of cold, concealed anxiety on my part. I accept that there will have to be exceptions to the rule. However, I hope that the rule itself is not without its merits.
	I do not suppose that the Minister is going to a beach for his holidays, but if he is, I hope that he enjoys it very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 139 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 229 and 230 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendments Nos. 230A and 230B not moved.]

Lord Avebury: moved Amendment No. 230C:
	After Clause 139, insert the following new Clause—
	"Traveller Education Services
	It shall be the duty of all local education authorities to establish a traveller education service which shall be resourced in proportion to the population of gypsies and travellers identified in the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments required under the Housing Act 2004 (c. 34)."

Lord Avebury: The proposed new clause makes it obligatory for all local authorities to establish a Traveller education service in proportion to their population of Gypsies and Travellers. I understand that all except eight or 10 LEAs do this already. Those that do not may claim not to have any Gypsies or Travellers in their area, but when the regional planning boards have completed their study of the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessments and allocated the number of extra pitches needed to eliminate homelessness shown by that exercise to individual authorities, with an obligation to provide the necessary land in their local development frameworks, there will be some balancing between authorities that have always had large numbers of Gypsies and those few which have managed to avoid having any.
	The formula in this amendment would still allow for the possibility that an LEA had no Gypsies or Travellers in its area, because the authority would then not have to devote any resources to its Traveller education service. The proposed new clause gives us the opportunity of exploring the hope of how the Government intend to apply the provisions of Part 1 to Gypsies and Travellers and how the TES will be involved in that process. Obviously we approve of the raising of the education leaving age to 18 for Gypsies and Travellers as for all others, but there needs to be some flexibility in how that is done, and I am not happy about the idea that non-compliance would lead to prosecution of Gypsies and Travellers.
	There should be support for improving, increasing and resourcing all manner of educational and training opportunities for 16 to 18 year-olds, and encouraging and supporting access to these opportunities, but this can and should be done without compulsion and criminalisation. In the Gypsy and Traveller community, many women marry at age 16 or 17 and become mothers in the first year or two of marriage. They should have the legal right to make that decision. If they can be offered outreach education, particularly in skills that are relevant to parenting, that should be the alternative to attendance at education or training sessions at a distant college and the need to leave a small child in the care of someone else. We ought to acknowledge that work in the home, particularly work as a mother, is every bit as valuable as work outside the home. Raising the next generation of citizens and workers is an honourable and very demanding occupation and should be recognised as such.
	We welcome the assurance given on Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, when she noted,
	"that young people's lives do not run along the lines designed by civil servants ... and in some cases it may be difficult or even impossible for a young person to participate".
	She added:
	"The focus will be on the need to provide help and support, and first to address barriers by tailoring programmes to aid the progress of young people back into learning in a way that is right for them".—[Official Report, 10/6/08; col. 557.]
	That is the right approach for Gypsies and Travellers, and it will be a far more effective way of increasing participation in secondary as well as further education than compulsion. We need to remove the barriers of bullying and racism that deter Gypsies and Travellers from attendance and contribute to their low attendance record from the beginning of secondary education onwards, and not just in the 16 to 18 age range. At the same time we need more research on the motivation of the community and the factors that would encourage them towards higher levels of participation. Until these problems are addressed, raising the school leaving age is not only meaningless but counterproductive because it will be one more source of confrontation between them and the authorities.
	We very much welcomed the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, sent to directors of local authority children's services in November 2006, in which he set out many of the problems faced by Gypsy and Traveller children in the education system. He suggested some very sensible solutions. Unfortunately, as he recalls, there was a poor response from local authorities, which is an indication of how low Gypsies and Travellers are in the priorities of most local authorities. The DCSF had to nag many of them just to get any sort of reply at all, and many of the answers that finally came were from Traveller education services, suggesting that local authorities felt that other departments need not be involved.
	The experience of the London Gypsy and Traveller Unit is that there has been no strategy in Hackney and Haringey, the two boroughs where it works, to provide adequate, useful vocational training for the 14 to16 year-olds whom the Government recognised were not benefiting from school. The LGTU provides some life skills and vocational training tasters for 14 to 19 year-olds, but is dependent on short-term funding. So how is adequate, useful vocational training to be provided under the Bill for 16 year-olds from Gypsy and Travellers communities?
	If there has been no strategy on how to assist hard-to-reach 14 to 16 year-olds, there can be no confidence that extending the age range is going to add to the educational opportunities for Gypsies and Travellers. Those youngsters who have not already benefited from current education provision simply will not comply with any obligation to participate in education or training after their 16th year and will then be needlessly criminalised. Should not powers of compulsion be withheld from local authorities until they have clearly demonstrated that they have a full and varied programme of appropriate education and training opportunities for Gypsies and Travellers that can be flexibly delivered? Following a helpful meeting that the Minister had last November with representatives of the National Association of Teachers of Travellers and the Advisory Council for the Education of Romany and other Travellers, he wrote to me about the efforts being made to get back into education the 12,000 GRT secondary-age children who were out of school according to an Ofsted survey of 2003. It would be useful to know how many children are back in the educational system. What estimate can the DCSF make of the proportion that is still missing?
	The Bill imposes a duty on local authorities to assess the training needs of young people with special educational needs. There is a case for extending that duty to all young people marginalised and disadvantaged within the education system, including Gypsies and Travellers in particular. The Traveller education service would be the key to this assessment, just as it has been crucial in providing consistent long-term data over the 35 years that it has been working with Gypsies and Travellers. It will need to be properly resourced if it is to promote post-16 and vocational training; and where elective home education is the option, as it often is in secondary education, to provide support to ensure that proper standards are maintained. The DCSF decided not to do anything about elective home education apart from issuing guidance that has nothing useful to say about how local authorities should monitor the delivery of education by Traveller parents, who are generally not professionally capable of providing a "suitable and efficient" education for their children.
	Very few members of the public know about the raising of the compulsory education leaving age, and Gypsies and Travellers in particular were completely unaware of a proposal that could disproportionately impact on their lives if there is not the necessary preparation. The first step is to ensure that the Traveller education service covers the whole country so that the communities have access to the full range of education wherever they are. However, the Traveller Law Reform Project suggests, as the Minister is aware, that the DCSF should offer to provide a forum that is similar to the successful forum initiated by the DCLG on Traveller accommodation issues in which Travellers and practitioners can regularly meet DCSF officials. I believe that there have been helpful noises from the Minister on this, but it would be useful to have them on the record. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: I rise merely to assure the Committee that my noble friend has the warm support of his Front Bench in moving his amendment. He has been, and continues to be, a remarkable advocate for the Gypsy and Traveller communities and he knows more about them than any of us. We would all do very well to listen to his wise words.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I welcome the aspiration behind this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly pointed out, children from the travelling community have considerable educational needs and will often require special help from their local education authority to realise their potential. The local education authority already has, as it has with all children, a duty to provide them with a high quality education. I support attempts to ensure that that happens.
	However, I have a concern about this proposal—that it may become an exercise in ticking boxes, which would distract from the much more important job of providing a high standard for everyone in a way that recognises the different needs of individuals.

Lord Adonis: I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his tireless work to raise awareness of the issues facing Gypsy, Roma and other Traveller communities, especially in his role as president of the Advisory Council for the Education of Romany and Other Travellers. I have been glad to meet him on several occasions to discuss its work and to participate with him in celebratory activities that mark the very good educational work and high levels of attainment of many young people in those communities.
	I wrote at some length last week to Richard Solly of the Traveller Law Reform Project, dealing with a number of the specific issues that the noble Lord has raised. I see that I failed to copy the letter to him, but I will copy it to Members of the Committee, and will place a copy of it in the Library of the House, so that it is made available.
	Some of the issues raised by the noble Lord about the need to provide adequate services to promote participation and proper advice and guidance, and not to take action about compulsion where there are reasonable excuses for non-attendance, have been covered in our previous debates. All of those parts of the Bill, which I have described at some length earlier in Committee, will also apply to young people in the categories to which the noble Lord referred. I think that that goes some way towards meeting his points about compulsion being inappropriately applied in respect of the Traveller communities.
	However, let me say little more about the work that we have been doing to boost educational provision for and attainment by the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. First, as the noble Lord said, a good proportion of local authorities maintain a Traveller education support service. As he said, I have written to all local authorities to urge them to ensure that their provision is good in that area. Secondly, the Gypsy. Roma and Traveller achievement programme, one of a number of targeted programmes offered by the national primary and secondary strategies, was launched in 2006 and aims to improve the quality of provision, rates of attendance and standards of behaviour and thus raise attainment for Gypsy, Rome and Traveller pupils. Forty-seven schools in 12 local authorities are currently involved in that programme and a further 40 schools in 10 new local authorities will join the programme in the autumn of this year.
	Thirdly, in February 2008 we published, The Inclusion of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Children and Young People. This document offers practical advice to local authorities, schools, pupils and parents on how to raise attainment among Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils.
	Fourthly, since 2004 we have funded the e-learning and mobility programme, which has provided e-supported distance learning and home access to highly mobile Traveller pupils. Currently there are three strands to the programme. Strand A provides key stage 3 and 4 pupils with laptops and mobile internet access and a range of learning materials. Pupils involved in strand A are able to keep in close contact with their teachers and peers. Ongoing evaluation of the programme has shown that pupil motivation increases, achievement is improved and pupils reintegrate far more easily when they return to school.
	Strand B, which began in September 2006, is a web-based learning environment for key stage 4 pupils who have disengaged from education—which is often the case in the Traveller communities. Although in its early stages, this strand has proved very encouraging and the majority of the initial participants have gained successful results in the first level of a wider key skills GCSE.
	Work is currently underway to develop a third strand, which will deliver a robust learning agreement, a training programme for parents in the effective support of distance learning, together with guidance and support on the overall provision, supervision and monitoring of distance learning. Currently 50 local authorities are involved in strands A and B of the programme, providing direct support to almost 1,000 pupils. Applications for involvement in strand C indicate that a further 1,700 pupils will benefit from the programme.
	I therefore hope that I have illustrated that we are doing much to support the education of pupils from the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, but we accept that much more needs to be done by us and by local authorities. We continue to work with representatives of these communities to assess what else needs to be done to improve the education of pupils from these communities. This includes the education of pupils beyond the age of 16.
	As I said in my letter to Richard Solly, officials from my department are working to set up a group drawn from these communities that will meet to discuss ongoing and future education policy and to ensure that specific challenges that may be encountered by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils in these areas are addressed. It is envisaged that this group will meet twice yearly and will work to inform policy so that ascription and attainment among these pupils will be raised. It will also seek to institutionalise the kind of regular discussions that the noble Lord and I have had in recent years which have led to worthwhile improvements, although it is important that these improvements are embedded in the normal machinery of my department and local authorities.

Lord Avebury: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his continuing interest in the problems of the GRT communities and in particular for his support for GRT history month, which I know at first hand. It was instrumental in giving enormous encouragement to the communities to become involved in more educational activities and, I hope, in increasing the level of attainment. I need to think about all the measures that he has described which are aimed at increasing the participation of Gypsies and Travellers in secondary education and onwards into education for 16 to 18 year-olds. The e-learning scheme that he described might be particularly relevant to that age group. I have seen it, and it looks as though it is working extremely well. Perhaps some of the skills that we know are particularly relevant to this community—in the case of women, the parenting skills that I mentioned—could be the subject of training programmes through the e-learning system, which would not require them to attend at a recognised place of education.
	At this late hour, I will simply content myself by saying many thanks to the Minister. We are extremely grateful for all the interest that he takes in these communities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 140 and 141 agreed to.
	Clause 142 [Functions of Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in England and Northern Ireland]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 142 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Lucas: My difficulties with Clause 142 stem not so much from what it does—not that I am clear what that is—but from the fact that it appears to tinker around the edges of the QCA when radical action is required. Extraordinarily at the moment, the QCA seems to have budded Ofqual, but Ofqual has no separate legal existence and nothing is being done in the Bill to give it one. Even if you try to find a button on the Ofqual website that says "About us", which is pretty common thing, it does not have one because there is no "us" to be about.
	The QCA's problems are, however, much deeper than that. It has become a Stalinist bureaucracy and shares with such bureaucracies all the faults that we associate with that period in Russian history. Although the right words might be stencilled over its entrance, it has become malevolent and something that destroys innovation and promotes mediocrity. The problems over the key stage 2 contract are merely the latest example. It has not been successful to date in delivering diplomas. They come through much more slowly that you would expect, they are elephantine and they will have no appeal to academic schools. The QCA's management of GCSEs and A-levels has been deeply disappointing. The educational content of GCSEs has become widely derided. A-levels are having to be reformed, and not before time.
	It, in a way, is inevitable that an organisation which seeks to draw all power to itself and to control the way in which the curriculum develops, according to a very narrow set of beliefs and criteria which have become embedded within it, should create this kind of difficulty. The very concept of having a centralised QCA in this way is destructive of the schools system, because each time there is an innovation it has to be a catharsis for the whole system. There is no problem for a school swapping from A-levels to the IB, or bringing in the IB, because that decision is made by the school, after consideration of its parents, at a time to suit the school. That transition can take place in a totally natural way. But the transitions masterminded by the QCA have been periods of catharsis and disruption, which is inherent in the system.
	Innovation happens in the educational system, but it happens where the private sector has an influence, principally in A-levels and the academic curriculum generally. The IB has made inroads in this country. We have the new Cambridge Pre-U and the AQA Baccalaureate. At the fringes, we have AS-levels pioneered by Rugby and practical GCSEs pioneered by Bedale. Lots of things are happening, but they all are evolving outside the QCA because of inherent demands in the private sector, which are arising because of the failure of the QCA to provide a viable examination system for the ambitions that the private sector has for its pupils.
	The enormous hole is in vocational examinations. There has been no innovation in vocational examinations in schools, except for this elephantine diploma, which requires that seven of your eight slots for GCSEs are devoted to one examination. Where is, for instance, the GCSE in architecture, which would be a wonderful cross-disciplinary thing? It would engage people in practical applications, while teaching them the scientific underpinnings of architecture, and the artistic and historical sides of it. So much could be built into an examination like that, but there is no innovation in it. Those who might wish to pursue this fusion between vocational and academic are principally in the state sector and prevented from doing so because there is no freedom to develop those things within the state sector.
	There have been attempts to develop GCSEs in construction. They have gone immensely slowly and have not produced anything really attractive, again because everything gets dictated from the centre. An innovation around when I started to take an interest in education was business studies in Spanish. Where has that gone? It has been crushed. There are so many inventive teachers in the state sector. Exam boards have the ability to introduce a history of innovating, but they have been prevented from doing it by the structure of the QCA.
	We need a much lighter structure. Page 44 of the Bill demonstrates that in the level of English and mathematics it is presumed should be universal. If that was the mandated, universal provision in the curriculum, instead of the current overburdened mathematics curriculum, and the rest of it was left to the examination boards to innovate with and to find bits of mathematics that would engage pupils—to find new ways of drawing them into the subject—rather than having to follow this tight and overburdened prescription that they have at the moment, we might get real innovation and success in mathematics education.
	To my mind the QCA is like a large, overgrown shrub taking up a corner of the garden. It is full of dead branches, decaying leaves and weak shoots. What needs to be done is to cut it to the base, to put on a good deal of blood and bone—whose blood and bones I leave it to the Minister to imagine—and then wait for the flowers to come next year. It is time we did something radical about the QCA.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My name is also attached to the Question whether this clause should stand part of the Bill. I must declare interests both as a member until the time it was disbanded of the advisory body to the regulatory section of the QCA, and as chair of the quality and standards committee of the City and Guilds Institute, the major provider of vocational qualifications.
	My reason for supporting the Question is to try to clarify exactly what Clause 142 is meant to do and what the future of Ofqual will be. Certainly I welcome in the clause what appears to be a move away from the absurd ratification of each individual qualification, particularly once the new qualifications and curriculum framework is put into place. It would mean the ratification of every single unit within each qualification, which would be an impossible task and impose a huge burden not only on Ofqual but on every single one of the providing bodies. I hope that this is a genuine move towards what I have prayed for over many years, and that is accreditation of the providers, making sure that their own quality control systems are robust—as the chair of one such provider, I am very confident that it is robust—and allowing them to get on and do as they please.
	I am simply concerned that although we breeze through 12 subsections where the providers are being accredited, not the individual qualifications—which would be an enormous step towards the kind of root and branch change my noble friend is asking for and which I wholeheartedly support—we come to subsection (13) where we talk about a qualification "accredited by the Authority". Is the authority still going to accredit individual qualifications? I hope that the Minister is going to tell us that it is not.

Baroness Walmsley: I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that when I cut shrubs down to the base in my garden, they grow even bigger the following year. I do not think that that is what he really wants for Ofqual. Since I am going to be meeting some senior people from Ofqual on Wednesday, I think that for the moment I shall keep my powder dry and wait to hear what the Minister says.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I have great sympathy for the arguments articulated by my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lady Perry. The functions of the QCA should ultimately be to provide as efficient and effective a system as possible. I know from the backgrounds of my noble friends that they speak on this issue with great authority and interest. I hope that the Government will listen to the points they have made and take them seriously.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I have listened carefully to the points made and have picked up on an interesting horticultural slant for this time in the evening. I want to do justice to the remarks of noble Lords opposite, and I hope they will forgive me if I detain them a little at this hour. I want to make clear what we are trying to do. The Bill seeks to strengthen and streamline the QCA's role in maintaining standards and qualifications. If the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, were not so frustrated by his concerns, he might feel that he could support this clause because our direction of travel should give him some comfort.
	The QCA will be given additional powers to recognise awarding and authenticating bodies rather than just accrediting individual qualifications. This will mean that the QCA can adopt a more risk-based approach to regulation, placing more weight on the general competence of awarding bodies and their processes rather than scrutinising each and every qualification separately—very much as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, suggested. I think that I can offer her the reassurance she is looking for. In this way the regulator can focus its efforts on where they will make the most difference, providing a leaner and stronger system for safeguarding standards.
	The provisions in the clause can apply to all regulated qualifications and are an important plank in our programme for strengthening the system for assuring qualifications standards. They are a forerunner for the legislation that we aim to bring forward in the next Session, when I hope we can give the noble Lord the flowers that he is looking for by establishing a fully independent regulator. We consulted on the proposals in December last year and, in the light of a generally positive response, we are currently drafting a Bill.
	On vocational qualifications, the clause is part of the Government's commitment to implement the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, and the proposals in the White Paper, World Class Skills, which we published a year ago. Again, this will move the QCA away from detailed scrutiny of vocational qualifications, enabling more streamlined, strategic and effective regulation. This policy is rooted in the vocational qualifications reform programme launched in November 2005. Clause 142 is an important step in delivering our commitment to accredit good employer training and to developing a demand-led vocational qualification system.
	On the wider policy context and the reform of the QCA, I should make it crystal clear that it is not being reformed because it has failed but because we want to improve the way in which standards of qualifications and assessments are safeguarded. As noble Lords have pointed, at the moment the QCA wears two different hats: first, the regulatory one, which safeguards standards and keeps awarding bodies on their toes over qualifications and the National Assessment Agency over the national curriculum assessments; and, secondly, it has a non-regulatory hat, which develops the national curriculum, provides advice to Ministers, delivers national curriculum assessments through its delivery arm, the National Assessment Agency, develops criteria for 14 to 19 qualifications and helps to reform the vocational qualification system.
	We accept that there is a tension within the current arrangements for safeguarding standards. The QCA is a regulator but it is also the key adviser to Ministers on curriculum matters and is responsible for the design and delivery of the national curriculum tests. To make these roles more clearly separate and to remove any potential conflict of interest, we have decided that the time is right to make the changes if we are to set up an independent regulator and the Office of the Qualifications and Examinations Regulator, Ofqual, and the QCA are to evolve into the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, QCDA, concentrating on curriculum development, assessment and qualifications delivery.
	The highly regrettable problems we have witnessed recently over the late delivery of national curriculum test results clearly illustrate the need for an independent regulator. If we had not already established Ofqual in an interim form, the inquiry being led by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, would be reporting to QCA on aspects of the delivery of its own tests rather than to Ofqual. As the new independent regulator, Ofqual will give the public, schools, colleges, higher education and employers greater confidence that exam standards are being maintained. It will therefore ensure that young people and their teachers feel that their hard work and achievements are properly recognised.
	Because of the need to set up a regulator there is a knock-on effect that change is needed to QCA, hence the new QCDA, which will inherit QCA's non-regulatory functions. The QCDA will build on the firm foundations laid by the QCA. It will be the key source of expertise supporting Ministers in the design of the curriculum and related qualifications and of learning and development in the early years, and it will be the organisation that develops and delivers national curriculum tests and ensures the safe delivery of public qualifications. Removing this clause would be to prevent more effective and strategic risk-based regulation by the QCA in its current form.
	I am disappointed that there is no button on the website for the noble Lord to use. I shall go back and have a look at that, because it would be an innovation worth pursuing. There is cross-party consensus about the need for a national curriculum, but I accept that innovation has to be a good thing. There is an awful lot of it going on with regard to A-levels. The QCA has a record of reducing bureaucracy, but I believe that the clause is the right way to go. It is a forerunner of a Bill that is being developed now. I hope that Members will feel able to support it.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: Will the Minister confirm that she said at the beginning that the power to accredit whole provider organisations is additional to still having the power to accredit each individual qualification, not instead of it? If so, I am very disappointed.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I am hoping that my note will clarify that. I think the answer is yes, but we accept the noble Baroness's concerns; they are why we are adopting this approach. If we took away the power to accredit, I am sure there would be unforeseen circumstances. Recognising awarding bodies at the strategic level rather than having to accredit individual qualifications is very much what it is about, but the existing power to accredit individual qualifications will continue. The drive is there to recognise bodies at a strategic level.
	I am advised that it is because the QCA will need to accredit public qualifications such as GCSEs.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: At this hour we should not continue the debate. The body does not have to accredit every individual GCSE examination. Edexcel, Cambridge Assessment and all these great providers of GCSEs and A-levels are robust in their quality control—meticulously so; there are learned professors who check every single item in the examination and who have detailed ways of checking the examination and the marking process. I simply do not understand why the QCA, or Ofqual, as it is becoming, needs to get involved in that, provided that it is convinced that the arrangements in the organisations that provide the examinations are robust. That should be its job—but I really will not keep the Committee at this time of night.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: The noble Baroness's points are well made and she has a strong depth of experience with which to make them. The point we are trying to make in this short debate is that this is about allowing a risk-based approach and a degree of attention to qualifications whereby, in exactly the awarding bodies she refers to where the processes are A* rated, using a risk-based approach means you would not need the kind of detailed scrutiny that currently exists where every individual qualification has to be accredited. That is what we want to move away from; we want to move towards exactly the system she has described, in which all those characteristics can be taken into account.

Lord Elton: I am disturbed by that. A risk-based approach presumably means that the QCA will retain the ability to go to the detail of individual qualifications. Surely the function of the QCA is to ensure that the providing bodies are sufficiently robust to do that themselves. I entirely agree with my noble friend. One has to reduce bureaucracy to have more freedom of invention.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: The noble Lord is right. We are creating an additional power for the QCA, which is intended to be a forerunner to an approach which I feel sure noble Lords opposite would feel able to support—in the next Bill.

Lord Lucas: I do not share my noble friend's optimism about the direction in which things are going. Perhaps she imagines that we might reach a situation akin to that of universities; once a university is accredited to award degrees, it is up to the university what degrees it awards. However, I do not think that that is how the QCA sees things, at least not as presently constituted. It sees this as getting prisoners to dig their own grave. The rules will still be in place but certain prisoners will be trusted to follow them to the letter. Any move away will not risk, as it does at the moment, the qualification getting thrown back, but the ability of the awarding body to proceed without interference. In other words, the stakes are much higher in attempting any innovation in GCSEs and A-levels than is currently the case and will result in a system that is sclerotic rather than free and open.
	I am delighted that we shall have a chance to debate this.

Lord Elton: Can we expect to know more about Ofqual before Report? I should have declared an interest as my noble friend's predecessor. I do not know whether that is relevant.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I am sure that we can circulate some background information about Ofqual to all Members of the Committee.

Lord Lucas: Ofqual already has a totally incomprehensible website, which my noble friend can try and make sense of if he wishes. Some of it works. We shall clearly come back to this subject next year.

Clause 142 agreed to.
	Clauses 143 and 144 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 231 not moved.]
	Clauses 145 and 146 agreed to.
	Clause 147 [Orders and regulations]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 231A to 231B:
	Clause 147, page 98, line 9, at end insert—
	"( ) an order under section (Corresponding provision for Wales),"
	Clause 147, page 98, line 17, at end insert—
	"( ) Before a draft of an instrument containing an order under section (Corresponding provision for Wales) is laid before either House of Parliament, the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 147, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 148 agreed to.
	Clause 149 [General interpretation]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 231C:
	Clause 149, page 98, line 35, at end insert—
	"( ) In this Act—
	"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations;
	"regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Act."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 149, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 150 to 152 agreed to.
	Clause 153 [Extent]:
	[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]
	Clause 153 agreed to.
	Clause 154 [Commencement]:
	[Amendment No. 233 not moved.]

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 233A to 233B:
	Clause 154, page 100, line 40, leave out "58 to" and insert "59,"
	Clause 154, page 100, line 40, after "72" insert ", and, so far as relating to those paragraphs, paragraph 58,"
	Clause 154, page 100, line 41, leave out "paragraphs" and insert "provisions"
	Clause 154, page 101, line 11, at end insert—
	"( ) Before making an order under subsection (4) containing provision for the coming into force of section (Corresponding provision for Wales), the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 234 to 237 not moved.]
	Clause 154, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 155 agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 238:
	Schedule 1, page 117, line 8, at end insert—
	"Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (c. 30)
	(1) Section 72 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (c. 30) (supply of information for certain purposes) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)—
	(a) after paragraph (c) insert—"(ca) a county council in England; and";(b) in paragraph (d) for "any such authority" substitute "any authority mentioned in paragraph (c) or (ca)".
	(3) In subsection (6) after ""social security information" means" insert "(subject to subsection (6A))".
	(4) After subsection (6) insert—
	"(6A) References in subsection (1)(a) and (b) to social security information held by a county council do not include social security information about any person to whom the council is not required to make support services available under section 54(1) of the Education and Skills Act 2008 (support services: provision by local education authorities).""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Repeals and revocations]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 239:
	Schedule 2, page 119, line 28, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (c. 30) In section 72(2), the word "and" following paragraph (c)." 
		
	
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
	House adjourned at 11.36 pm.